From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
X-Received: by 10.36.172.79 with SMTP id m15mr10766401iti.36.1511606948723;
Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.157.95.5 with SMTP id f5mr1331980oti.9.1511606948617; Sat,
25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!d140no5965041itd.0!news-out.google.com!193ni1838iti.0!nntp.google.com!d140no5965038itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 02:49:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=65.94.54.197; posting-account=8Vsz_woAAABQPV3Epo66m_rYvK1EHzOV
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.94.54.197
References: <ova1d5$8gq$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <479f0dfb-0849-4806-af7f-17fedec964ec@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
From: RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2017 10:49:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Body-CRC: 1191592256
X-Received-Bytes: 3981
Print Article
Forward Article
On Friday, 24 November 2017 16:02:37 UTC-5, Alan Smithee  wrote:
> The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor 
> critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking 
> with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban. It incensed 
> critics and fans alike.
> 
> Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in 
> Rotten Tomatoes.
> 
> More than just a kerfuffle over one superhero movie, the incident raises 
> larger questions about the relationship between reviewers and the 
> public, the editorial objectivity of aggregators and how much studios 
> should be empowered to control the pre-release messaging of their films.
> 
> "I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes," 
> said Guy Lodge, a critic who contributes to Variety. "An aggregation 
> site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it," 
> he added, "and it becomes very confusing."
> 
> A Rotten Tomatoes spokeswoman declined to provide a comment for this 
> story, as did a WB spokeswoman.
> 
> With a budget approaching $300 million, "Justice League" is among the 
> most expensive movies ever made. Warner Bros. has a lot riding on the DC 
> Comics film, seeking its own ensemble superhero blockbuster to rival the 
> "Avengers" series from Disney/Marvel.
> 
> The Rotten Tomatoes affair began when the site postponed its release of 
> the "Justice League" critics' score — the percentage of reviewers who 
> certify a movie as "fresh," or good — from late Tuesday to early 
> Thursday, just hours before the movie was to begin playing in theaters. 
> The move was rare, but the site said it wanted to reveal the number on a 
> new Facebook video segment. The score would turn out to be a subpar 43 
> percent.
> 
> Some saw the withholding of the score, which was widely expected to be 
> low, as an attempt to bury bad news about a sister company and not deter 
> ticket sales ahead of opening weekend.
> 
> "Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I 
> respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look," 
> Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted. Rotten Tomatoes is owned 
> by the ticket-sale site Fandango, of which Warner Bros. owns 30 percent 
> and Comcast Universal owns 70 percent.
> 
> http://newsok.com/rotten-tomatoes-under-fire-for-timing-of-justice-...

Beyond the old paid press junkets that ensured whore reviewers towed the line.  Now the whole site
is "owned."