From: william ahearn <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id q126mr1088820itb.27.1510174478656;
Wed, 08 Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by with SMTP id l8mr143698oth.7.1510174478533; Wed, 08
Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:54:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <otvd6j$947$>
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
References: <otsfd6$77k$> <5a03224b$0$18141$b1db1813$>
<> <5a032bef$0$33612$b1db1813$>
<> <otvd6j$947$>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Disney vs. LA Times
From: william ahearn <>
Injection-Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 20:54:38 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 15
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 12:00:07 PM UTC-5, Obveeus wrote:

> 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?

Such as Psycho? Alfred Hitchcock saw Michael Powell crucified by the British press when Peeping Tom
was previewed. He decided to forego the press and open wide.