Test Screenings?

[CordrazineOD]

Nothing to the tears of laughter that reading some of the political stuff evokes.

Back under your bridge, Troll!

You may have forgotten temporarily that you weren't in TNZ, but that sort of thing won't fly here. Please don't do that again.

Dennis, I'd just as soon we didn't have politics raised here, even indirectly; the canon disputes pertaining to the movie get ugly enough, as it is. And if April would refrain from making pronouncements about what

...means jack squat in my book.

...while prominently displaying a link to it in his signature, perhaps no one would be tempted to comment upon its contents. Who was out from under what bridge remains in question, it seems, but I don't wish to see any of it in here.

Sorry, I'm kinda new here but you mean to say you prefer we completely refrain from discussing politics on a Star Trek BBS? I mean, as it would pertain to Star Trek XI we really can't since we don't know the script and what political connotations there may be (or that some may see or infer) in the story. But so much of Star Trek, esp. TOS, IS VERY political and I certainly think both Roddenberrys would've wanted fans to interpret the allegorical lessons and apply them the real world, as long as it's done respectfully. I've got no problem having the user with the Ferengi political orientation (whose blog you linked) making his case on here as long as he's tolerant and tolerated, and as long as the discussion stems from something that happened in Trek. Can't we have a constructive and vigorous ideological debate if it's pertinent to a righteously preachy episode?

Sorry, it's just that Trek is far more than mere entertainment to me and the optimistic vision of the future is certainly not without some philosophical underpinnings (what exactly those are, and the ideological principles stemming therefrom, are open to interpretation and debate). It would take some of the fun out of it for people like me if we're being encouraged to self-sensor our political sentiments. Thanks.

 

[pookha]

^^ you could pm the mods directly and ask them.

 

[M'Sharak]

...

Sorry, I'm kinda new here but you mean to say you prefer we completely refrain from discussing politics on a Star Trek BBS? I mean, as it would pertain to Star Trek XI we really can't since we don't know the script and what political connotations there may be (or that some may see or infer) in the story. But so much of Star Trek, esp. TOS, IS VERY political and I certainly think both Roddenberrys would've wanted fans to interpret the allegorical lessons and apply them the real world, as long as it's done respectfully. I've got no problem having the user with the Ferengi political orientation (whose blog you linked) making his case on here as long as he's tolerant and tolerated, and as long as the discussion stems from something that happened in Trek. Can't we have a constructive and vigorous ideological debate if it's pertinent to a righteously preachy episode?

Sorry, it's just that Trek is far more than mere entertainment to me and the optimistic vision of the future is certainly not without some philosophical underpinnings (what exactly those are, and the ideological principles stemming therefrom, are open to interpretation and debate). It would take some of the fun out of it for people like me if we're being encouraged to self-sensor our political sentiments. Thanks.

Politics or political philosophy as directly pertains to the story in a Trek episode or movie is fine and appropriate, but that is not the sort of thing I referred to above. Real-world politics written about in someone's blog or in today's news headlines have nothing to do with what we're talking about in this forum. We have other forums on this BBS where those might be appropriate topics for discussion; I would prefer they be left there and not raised here.

 

[Sector 7]

I, too, would give a testicle (only one) to be at a pre-screening of this movie. Although I've called a few old friends (wherein were discussed such topics as "remember when I did ___ for you that time?" and "you owe me this one"), it has been to no avail.
My conclusion is that this movie is 'favor-proof' at this point.

 

[Frontier]

I wouldn't be surprised to see advance screenings the day or days before, but not earlier than that.

I know for The Dark Knight, they had advance screenings 2 days before.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^It does them little good to give the reviewers a look less than 48 hours before the debut.

Typically, from the times mentioned on the movie review shows I've seen, The pro reviewers SHOULD have started getting screeners within the last month. Depending on the priority they put on reviewing the film, I would have expected SOME reviews by now.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

I, too, would give a testicle (only one) to be at a pre-screening of this movie. Although I've called a few old friends (wherein were discussed such topics as "remember when I did ___ for you that time?" and "you owe me this one"), it has been to no avail.
My conclusion is that this movie is 'favor-proof' at this point.

Are they telling you there ARE no screenings, or just they can't get you IN to one?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Dennis, I'd just as soon we didn't have politics raised here, even indirectly...And if April would refrain from making pronouncements about what

...means jack squat in my book.

...while prominently displaying a link to it in his signature, perhaps no one would be tempted to comment upon its contents.

Okay, boss. No politics.

I wouldn't be surprised to see advance screenings the day or days before, but not earlier than that.

I know for The Dark Knight, they had advance screenings 2 days before.

This is realistic; the assumption about "screeners" going out to reviewers six weeks early is uninformed nonsense.

 

[jamestyler]

I wouldn't be surprised to see advance screenings the day or days before, but not earlier than that.

I know for The Dark Knight, they had advance screenings 2 days before.

This is realistic; the assumption about "screeners" going out to reviewers six weeks early is uninformed nonsense.

Granted, I've only done three films and am very extremely hopelessly ridiculously far (not enough emphasis) from an expert. I don't even review films, I give a bit of input and fill a void.

So far the typical time scale has been watch a screening (or receive a DVD) on Monday/Teusday, and somewhere between then and the Friday comes the review.

Being said - that's not in print. And I got the gig by accident and will freely admit I don't know what the hell I'm doing

 

[Aragorn]

Uninformed nonsense? Here? No way!!!!!!

 

[Flake]

I heard the May edition of total film magazine has a review of Trek and its out in the first week of April

 

[Devon]

I heard the May edition of total film magazine has a review of Trek and its out in the first week of April

Laughable how far behind that magazine is considering some fans had reviews before the movie even began production.

I imagine they will have some press screenings before hand in enough time possibly get some quotes for ads. For example "Gene Fluffy Fingers of the New York Times gives it a X out of 5 stars. Time Magazine says it is the best movie of all time next to Police Academy 4..." etc etc.