The discussion may be over, but I would like to clarify as a final point: This article was specifically about coverage of the film/TV events Comic-Con (both what is posted and what is demanded by blog audiences), not the actual experience of attending. Descriptions of footage and descriptions of what directors/cast say to shill the movies are the bread and butter of this. They make up 80%+ of the coverage on film/TV sites.

“Art cannot and should not be evaluated before it has become artifact.” That’s sounds fine to say except it’s not what is actually happening. No one is evaluating finished product. Art is not such a tightly defined entity that it holds itself up inside the four concrete walls you’ve seemed to have constructed around it. Art, at times, is visceral, art is experiential, art is something to be engaged with and at it true heart art is the purest form of subjectivism. Giving fans glimpses into what is coming, feeding the pre-existing curiosity and hunger is a full and valid exercise (certainly not complete) in allowing people to engage in it.

You also falsely argue a point of illusion. Were one just to read your article, you’d think nothing happens at Comic Con other than screening trailers and then writing about them. If you have indeed ever covered Comic-Con, you either know that to be a complete falsehood, or you never actually knew how to properly cover Comic-Con in the first place.

However at this point I need to stop engaging with you. You operate on a flawed presupposition that what happens at Comic-Con and what is presented there is not “art”, and therefore no point of discussion will alter your thinking. Thus, any further dialog is rather pointless.

“Journalism is not synonymous with criticism. Journalism is, by nature, informative. Critical analysis is certainly a part of journalism, but not at all times nor is it the end goal.” — While I certainly agree with this in theory, I think one would be hard-pressed to justify most of what is posted about Comic-Con as actual journalism. Actual journalism raises questions, considers implications, and reports on the substantive (e.g. “What are the socioeconomic impacts of an event like SDCC?”). I do not believe that recapping what was in trailer footage shown in Hall H is actual journalism. That’s becoming a surrogate to the studios. Which, again, is fine if you’re a “geek site,” but otherwise, it distracts from real news.

* * *

“To use a sports analogy Comic-Con is in many way the pre-game. You have to wait until the game is played and is over before breaking it down, discussing the twists and turns it took, where the mistakes were made and where acts of greatness were achieved. That is the time for critical analysis.” — Pre-gaming is for sports. Art cannot and should not be evaluated before it has become artifact.

* * *

“Film fans love Comic-Con, they engage there, they get to see and touch and experience things there they never otherwise get exposed to.” — Undoubtedly, this happens, and as I note, that is the original spirit of the event. However, there are better venues with far less downsides through which film interests in particular can be cultivated. Comic-Con cultivates the “pre-gaming” mentality of which you speak, which I believe is wholly destructive because it is so inextricably tied to marketing and corporate interests. And it has nothing to do with the “final product,” unless you’re writing a book deconstructing how a movie movie from pitch to marketplace.

* * *

“Comic-Con is a place for real journalists to gather all the new information released and disseminate it to those who trust and follow you to stay informed.” — I simply wish that they could approach that information critically. Which is not to say negatively. But rather, to sort through the PR-spin rather than wholeheartedly embrace it. Somehow, there has been a narrative fostered that Comic-Con is a utopia for geeks and, through this premise, the studios/advertisers have been able to hijack it because the masses blindly go along with most of what is part of the event.

The bottom line is this: Trailers/previews/etc are not artistically relevant. They certainly have other relevance, but that’s rarely what bloggers examine at Comic-Con. It’s always “This movie looks like it’s going to be great, with awesome special effects.” That’s not criticism, and to pretend otherwise is silly.

The inherent problem with your thesis is that it equates to lamenting the lack of a Prime Rib menu option at a Shushi Bar.

Journalism is not synonymous with criticism. Journalism is, by nature, informative. Critical analysis is certainly a part of journalism, but not at all times nor is it the end goal. Given the pure quantity of information released at an event like Comic-Con, one could make an argument that to not cover it would exhibit a lack of “real” journalism.

The center of your premise seems to be that since there is nothing presented at Comic-Con that gives itself to critical analysis it is therefore a fools act of “drink(ing) the Comic-Con Kool Aid” to cover it and according to you, subjects one self to not being “real” journalists or “real” fans.

As a pure film critic (if that is not what you qualify yourself as forgive me for misspeaking) there are only a small handful of screening opportunities to watch and analyze full feature films, and from that perspective I can understand a degree of professional frustration. It is your Prime Rib. However, you ignore completely that this event is about giving fans an experience. To generate excitement amongst them. I assure you sir that despite your assertion, I am a “true” film fan as far back as my earliest childhood memory, and I love Comic-Con and eat it up.

To use a sports analogy Comic-Con is in many way the pre-game. You have to wait until the game is played and is over before breaking it down, discussing the twists and turns it took, where the mistakes were made and where acts of greatness were achieved. That is the time for critical analysis.

You erroneously forget that while marketing and advertising piggy back on events like Comic-Con, they do not by default become synonymous. Film fans love Comic-Con, they engage there, they get to see and touch and experience things there they never otherwise get exposed to. Virtual mountains of information is released and first looks are given… yet to you none of that holds fundamental value. To you, sites that would stoop so low as to give coverage to such an event lowers their standing.

Again, I appreciate and respect your personal choice to not cover Comic-Con for your own personal reasons. However, Comic-Con is a place for real journalists to gather all the new information released and disseminate it to those who trust and follow you to stay informed. If all you’re interested in is critical analysis, that’s fair, just stop grousing that your favorite dish isn’t being served up at our Sushi Bar… which by the way the rest of us are enjoying a great deal.

My main issue, as I think I’ve voiced adequately, is that Comic-Con coverage is, by its very design design, not critical. As the name implies, it is the responsibility of critics to be critical.

I do not necessarily have a problem with the event itself. I have a problem, as I have voiced, with the way that the event as been treated so un-critically that it is now treated as though it is as relevant to filmmaking as events of considerably more artistic significance.