There's been at least three major incidents over the years where Internet hype has led studios to feel a project is worth (additional) risk but in the end it didn't pay off. 1. Firefly is cancelled. Untold Internet backlash, writing in to studios, and Amazon pre-orders of the DVD set. Universal takes a risk and buys the rights to produce and release a Firefly-based movie --- which tanks in the box office. 2. Snakes on a Plane gets incredilbe internet buzz and hype purely on name and promise of cheese alone (and part Jackson's involvment) which even goes as far as to reshoot a scene in the movie to deliver a much anticipated line. SoaP tanks at the box office. 3. Jericho gets canceled and Internet petitions/plans and backlash causes tons of peanuts to be shipped to CBS. CBS takes a risk and assumed that Internet hype means they have will/get more viewers in the long-haul. Jericho gets a second season it tanks in the ratings. And I'm sure there's many more examples where there was a lot of Internet hype and excitement over a project or the cancelation of series/movie and the studios took what the Internet was saying as indication that they should put additional risk towards the project and there may be some sucsess stories out there. But it seems to me that, for the most part, what people say on the Internet doesn't necessairly translate to the real world as widely as one might think. It would seem that the "internet demographic" is very niche and not very well representive of the overall public's view and wants.
Well, that's not exactly it. It's a large demographic, but it only takes 5% of that demographic to raise a huge stink over a particular issue. So while the "internet demographic" is big, it's impossible to judge how many of them really care about something. Take note of how many threads around here go on for days with just 3 or 4 people fighting back and forth!
Is this argument even valid when discussing ratings when most of these types of shows are downloaded/recorded, not reflecting in the way ratings are calculated? Of course the geeks (and I use the term proudly!) didn't increase the ratings with their campaign! They're too smart to sit through the commercials and watch things when they air! As for the movie thing, maybe it's the same problem? They all downloaded said movies? I'm not sure.
The Internet is loud, but that does not necessarily mean that it represents the nation. If it did, then President Howard Dean would be facing a tough reelection battle with Ron Paul this year.
^ Then again, Democratic bloggers did appear to have won the US Senate Democratic primary for former Republican Secretary of the Navy Jim Webb in Virginia two years ago.
People can gripe all day long on the internet and say anything they want, but that does not translate into putting actual money behind those opinions.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of people who go to the movies and watch TV use the internet. But the number who post on niche interest forums; follow internet memes, and for that matter back niche interest petitions; is doubtless decidedly smaller. So the internet counts; but this element of the net's populace is less significant than it might appear.
I wouldn't say that Democratic bloggers won that race. But I would say that the Internet played a huge role in Webb's victory. What really won him that race was the video of George Allen calling an Indian guy "macaca" that was put up on youtube and got endless press. That one youtube video and the subsequent controversy it created probably won that race for Jim Webb.
And don't you guys watch South Park? You can't abuse the internet, you can only use it to look at porn a maximum of TWICE per day.
I was referring to the primary portion of the election, in which bloggers played a significant role in Webb's victory over the more traditional Democratic candidate.