From: Alan Smithee <>
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Full headers:
From: Alan Smithee <>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.current-films
Subject: Re: Rotten Tomatoes Under Fire For "Justice League" Review
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2017 22:05:54 -0400
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 21
Message-ID: <ovl4m0$jnq$>
References: <ova1d5$8gq$> <> <slrnp1r7li.1mdf.g.kreme@jaka.lan>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Print Article
Forward Article
On 11/28/2017 01:36 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message<> Ed Stasiak<>
>>> Alan Smithee
>>> 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.
>> Not at all, it’s called the 1st Amendment.
> No it is not.
>> The movie studio can simply stop providing preview viewings to critics
>> if they don’t like what they’re saying.
> They can, if they are spectacularly stupid.

is there any doubt...