![]() With podcasting, there is a downside to that looseness, that sometimes requires a more judicious editor of audio. There is always this sense of wanting to say more or wanting to say what you said in a different way. I mean, I don’t know about you, and I don’t know about other critics, but I know when I write a review, 10 minutes later I think “I wanted to say something else, I wanted to add more.” Obviously, you can write follow-up posts of some kind, but it’s not the same as that initial review. For me, that looseness is what is different from written criticism. I think in “Filmspotting”, a lot of the discussion that Adam Kempenaar and Josh Larsen doesn’t have the sort of free form style of other podcasts. I’m thinking of Peter Labuza’s “ The Cinephiliacs” and “ Filmspotting“, both of which are very good shows, and I think you can tell for Peter’s podcast, in the non-interview portion, that he has written down what he is going to say first. I know there are some very good podcasts out there that maybe not entirely, but partially rely on writing down everything you’re going to say before. Well, I’m sure some podcasters will tell you it doesn’t have to. How do you think that podcasting differs from written criticism? But on the other side, I thought “if it fails, it’s only your fault and you can’t blame anyone else.” So, I pushed myself into it. On the one side, I was worried that no one would listen to one guy talking about Disney movies. And I told myself that if I really want to do this show, I have to commit to doing it. I feel like a lot of podcasts, as soon as they get started, are dropped. If you do a podcast, you really have to commit to doing it for a while. It was a couple of guys, myself included, just talking about pop culture and there wasn’t enough commitment to it. Now, I did one podcast before “Mousterpiece”, but it didn’t really go anywhere.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |