From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.albasani.net!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Obveeus <Obveeus@aol.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:00:02 -0500
Organization: albasani.net
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
References: <otsfd6$77k$1@dont-email.me>
<5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$e2fc663e@news.astraweb.com>
<8833893b-3631-4561-a58c-03af59d06b8c@googlegroups.com>
<5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$b1165489@news.astraweb.com>
<5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.albasani.net lFS9UBjampXJiXS4ofhlsacf/0KRrxFvqxSHNF4y2+DxGz4TWlcb2rdNBjEVvmB78qdAmCHbBPXD+17KJyIsGg==
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:00:03 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: news.albasani.net; logging-data="Wp6uqzAgVlMuLTuSVQYtXjprndXDWLT2+AX04OoHziHnJoTFrspaZ2f1mJUE+JOZxDvmm++D0pK0APiXTKgmMMW4xaD8qwylZGDRhT5JpGDWt4AcR146wZ5z0mKY/x9r"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@albasani.net"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
In-Reply-To: <5d73cfe2-9898-4669-b280-bf22fb7a5d9a@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:E2rIpPw1oWRXNo7YCy2uNl6wz8Q=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 11:25 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 11:08:18 AM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> 
>>
>> Not if it's a wedding or a vacation holiday.  But the impending release
>> of big movies are by definition a matter of public interest, and timely
>> reporting on them is the livelihood of a press segment.  While it seems
>> (somewhat) reasonable that studios may occasionally cherry-pick certain
>> reviewers for an *extra*-advanced screening, the usual press-only
>> Monday(?) screenings seem more subject to the aforementioned "spirit".
>>
> Absolute rubbish. What if the studio doesn't have a press screening? Does that become a supreme
court case? A movie opening is in the "public interest"? 

We've certainly seen the entertainment press claim that not having press 
screenings is somehow a violation of their right to review films...and 
those films that avoid advanced press screenings are bashed by reviewers 
once those reviewers do gain access to the films (alongside the rest of 
the public).  It then turns into a chicken and egg argument where we can 
only guess how much of the bad review fervor is based upon the film 
being bad and how much is based upon the backlash of the reviewer being 
denied early access.  Similarly, does a studio avoid the pre-screenings 
to try and get the public opinion in play before the professions 
reviewers can taint the film's image or does a studio only want to get 
as many movie ticket dollars as possible before word of mouth on a film 
spreads?