From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
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>
<otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
From: moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:45:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <otvd6j$947$1@news.albasani.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <5a0342bc$0$5752$b1db1813$5890f3ee@news.astraweb.com>
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 321a397d.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=5>j3>2Kjho9l=bkA3Hk5C1L?0kYOcDh@:KNoAQd2m[Q4XUI8bb:A\1?V3ALV_USl><E7Fc1cQiAk>]0U5NFR3]O>lR^C@9L80T6
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/8/2017 12:00 PM, Obveeus wrote:
> 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?

I'm not arguing the actual Constitutional legality of barring certain 
critics from screenings.  I'm simply claiming that an event that's open 
to most of the press ought to be open to all of it, and that anything 
else is an attempt to compromise the integrity of that press.

Btw, SNAKES ON A PLANE eschewed advance screenings, and was afterwards 
chided by critics as having hid its light under a bushel.  As for 
retaliation against such "cowardice", I'm sure most critics like to 
think their eventual reviews go unaffected -- which could result in 
undeserved positive judgements as easily as negative.

-- 

- - - - - - - -
   YOUR taste at work...
     http://www.moviepig.com