Gotta say... the review embargo does very little to restore my confidence.. 
David Mack is GUSHING about it...this should settle it
- Thread starter Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai
- Start date
How about that - I didn't know he was connected to the show. I'll still be watching and crossing my fingers regardless of his assessment
I don't think it did? Can you give us a link?
I think CBSAA will be fine with the reviews coming after the premiere, considering the premiere will be on "free" TV.
My overall point is simply that just like we can't jump it the conclusion that "it must be good because David Mack says it is!", we also shouldn't jump to the conclusion "it must be bad if they aren't letting critics publish their review until after it airs".
In both cases we need to wait and see the actual product before making any judgements.
I think most folks would feel that way even if there were reviews. Negative reviews didn't hurt The Orville out of the gate.
Which lends more credence to the idea that the publishing embargo might be in order to prevent spoilers rather than because CBSAA is worried that it will be getting a lot of bad reviews
There are embargoes on the reviews of most films and tv shows if they're made available for viewing well prior to release.
Customarily, the embargo is lifted a week or a few days before release.
STID was released on May 16, 2013.
The review embargo on STID was lifted on May 2nd, 2013.
But they could have simply put mechanisms in the Non-Disclosure Agreement to prevent that. I'm sure they have no issues with David Mack telling everyone how great it is on Twitter.
Again, then that would amount to CBSAA telling critics the fashion that they should write their reviews (i.e., the structure of their reviews).
Many critics WANT to write plot points in their reviews -- it's how they write them. But if CBSAA doesn't want even those relatively minor plot points to be known, I can't expect a critic to be OK with CBSAA telling them what they can and can't include in their review.
And it's not like those critics would want to write two reviews -- one prior to the Sept 24th premiere that does not mention any plot points but says "trust me...it's good/bad" and one after the premiere that later includes plot points to back up why they said it was good or bad.
EDIT TO ADD: And David Mack is not a professional TV critic who must build a case to back up his review, so his tweets are not a good analogy.
Last edited:
I don't buy it. Clicks of any kind drive their careers. A non-spoiler Star Trek review is still going to drive people to websites that publish them. Likely moreso that post-release reviews.
I don't think this review embargo stuff will matter half as much as people think it does.
It's possible that they think creating an air of mystery and exclusively around the show is what will drive subscribers to sign up -- the "JJ Abrams' Mystery Box" approach.
I don't get the impression that studios really understand this whole streaming thing yet, nor how best to market for it. All these concerns that the embargo means that they're worried about negative reviews assume knowledgeable planning on the part of CBS, but they could just be throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. We won't know either way until it airs.
Yes. I think there is a distinct possibility that the embargo was NOT because CBSAA has no faith in it and that CBS foresees a bunch of bad reviews.
Then again, maybe it will turn out that it was the reason, but I suppose we will have to wait to find out.
This here.
Even if the initial reviews are bad, I'm giving this a fair shake. All Trek series started off getting bad reviews. All of them.
To me, the review embargo means nothing.
I find reviews by professional critics to be pretty out of touch with reality in the first place, as they pretentiously look down their noses from their ivory towers at the everyday reality of just having a good time with popular entertainment. This is especially evident when sites like Rottentomatoes show a huge disparity between the critic score and the audience score for a movie.
Like food critics, media critics don't have the joy of making the actual product, or even just enjoying the product at the level of a real-world everyday consumer; all they know how to do is look for things to criticize from their lofty vantage point, whether justified or connected with reality or not.
It's unfortunate that the general viewing public is led to rely so much on the sanctimonious opinions of professional reviewers.
Kor
I find reviews by professional critics to be pretty out of touch with reality in the first place, as they pretentiously look down their noses from their ivory towers at the everyday reality of just having a good time with popular entertainment. This is especially evident when sites like Rottentomatoes show a huge disparity between the critic score and the audience score for a movie.
Like food critics, media critics don't have the joy of making the actual product, or even just enjoying the product at the level of a real-world everyday consumer; all they know how to do is look for things to criticize from their lofty vantage point, whether justified or connected with reality or not.
It's unfortunate that the general viewing public is led to rely so much on the sanctimonious opinions of professional reviewers.
Kor
Last edited:
I think I remembered incorrectly.. I think jj asked the audience at the world premiere not to spoil it, or something like that.. different thing, but I still feel cbs wants to avoid spoilers more than bad reviews
That's fine for the critics who are OK writing non-substantive reviews that do not provide any detail to back up their review. However, there are also many critics who want to include story details in order to give support to their review.
It might be those critics who usually include story details in their reviews that is prompting CBS to embargo publications of the reviews until after the premiere.
I mean, even the reviews out of which soundbites such as "It's a rollicking good time" or "unfortunately there are more misses than hits" includes an relatively analysis of the show in order to backup those soundbites.
By telling them that they can write reviews, but leave out anything about the story, you would be asking a critic to give a review without giving the an explanation for the review. Maybe some critics are OK with that, but I bet other critics are not.
