>>17208152
You couldn't make more vague question, could you OP?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=writing+own+blog+101

>>17208163
I want more than just normie tier advices, so I posted the question here. It's better than your average "hurr durr my gf left me, how do I get back with her", "whee, I want to kill myself, because I'm a miserable human being" etc.

>>17208171
Please specify your question and I might give you some hints. What do you need advice for?

>>17208173
How do I make people interested in my reviews, and how long should it be?

>>17208152
Let me guess
>star wars was a cash grab!
>Snyder is great and msrvel sucks!
>Tarkovsky is the greatest director ever

Also, how can I write about deep movies and not seem pretentious?

>>17208194

no
no
no

>>17208181
Ok, first of all some things related to your website

>easy, not overloaded design, i.e. the less the better
>remarkable scheme of colours, dont mix them
>if possible avoid JS and google bloatshit, that'll give you some reputation as someone who knows his shit - if you do so that is
>have your page structured well and clear

Now, to the writing

>Not too long

I'm not an expert on this, but I'd suggest - as a rule of thumb - that if it's longer than two pages most people these days will skip. If there's too much text, people will go like "Nah, tl;dr".

>Use professional language, but don't overdo it

That means use terms for things when appropriate (saturation of images, lighting of scenes or whatever, english is not my first language). But don't use words that make you look like a smartass. I could give you an example in german, but that probably is not your native language.

>Focus on factual shit

Don't go all "Nah, new StarTrek is shitty, because I prefer TOS". Even though that specific comment might draw in a shitload of Trekkies, you don't want to take sides too strongly. If a movie is shitty, go ahead. But don't call a movie shit just because peronal preferences.

>Structured writing

Have a recoginzable structure of text. For example, start with introduction relating to e.g. the past, the director or Idontcarewhat, then come to the plot, then over to the production (if important), then the conclusion. This is just an example, you will probably come up with a way better structure if you give it some thought.

Alright dude, I guess I gave you some hints. Good luck. Oh, and next time you might wanna google that shit. What I just said was probably posted like one miilion times in two billion blogs all over the world.

File: 1457445912264.png (1 MB, 960x720) Image search: [Google]

1 MB, 960x720

>>17208220

This was very helpful, anon, thanks! Enjoy your day.

>>17208220
Oh, forgot my first thought. Don't, for the love of god, take yourself too seriously. The most successful youtubechannels and blogs are those who take themselves and their writing lightly and dont hesitate to joke about themselves.

Also, repretitive joke might be good, something like your trademark if you will. Then again, make sure it's funny. If it ain't, you're probably done for.

>>17208205
Welp, of you aren't going to be a contrarian little shit (Tarkovsky isn't contrarian I guess just memey) then what do you bring to the table. What new and exciting reviews can you give us?

Also no one will watch anything longer than 2min because they can just get it elsewhere.

>>17208235
I've never taken myself serious in the first place, I only want to write reviews for fun, but I wanna make sure I do a good job.

>>17208243

I'm going to be objective, if the movie sucks, I'm going to destroy it, if it's good I'm going to write a positive review on it. I'm not gonna be a contrarian like most of /tv/, that board was a mistake. I really won't bring anything new to table, I'm just writing it for my friends, and for movie related groups I'm in. If I'll be good at it, I'm going to try to become a professional.

>>17208258
Also, I'm going to avoid being a shill. I won't overhype movies like most tend to do. Fuck shills.

>>17208249
>>17208249
I'd lastly suggest to look at successful blogs and utube channels. My advice here is not to copy, but to look at the mechanisms behind their work. Like, for example (almost) every successful channel has a well made intro, that is something people remember. Another example, [Spam?] almost always has the same line at the start. See what I mean? Focus on what they do well, analyze and develop your own concept adapted to your needs/ goals.

God damn it, why does 4chan think my post is spam?

>>17208266
Yeah, I was thinking about having my own "signature sign".

>>17208258
I gave you shit but it seemse like you have a genuine interest, plus you want to do this with friends so you'll probably succeed. You'd probably have to watch a lot of movies twice to really nail down what gets you e.g. "when x says y it was fake as shit" obviously more eloquently bur you get the idea.

For writing, just write what comes naturally. The 2 biggest things that will improve your writing is practice and reading. Most people have a style by the end of high school, but since they never write they never develop it. Just write something down and improve from there. Also, don't write to much. Your review should flow naturally from one critique to the next.

If you review more artistic films do so lightly. I'm not saying to not go in depth with your analysis and whatnot, but don't make it overly moody. When writing reviews your writing should have a tone, not a mood. Like >>17208235 said, don't be too serious. You can review all kinds of artsy shit like UC and 2001 and whatever the FOTM is, but if you really want to get people interested in what you have to say, or the movie at the very least, have some humor with yourself.

Think I hit everything.

>>17208295

Thanks, anon, this too was helpful. You have a great day as well!

>>17208310
Make a follow up thread when everything's up and running. I'm interested to see how it all turns out.

>>17208419
Will do.