The Dark Knight Rises Anticipation Station

[Dick Whitman]

I was going to say it earlier but I hesitated. But now I will -

Jarod that is one of the biggest over reactions I have EVER read online. Which says a lot! Why do you even need a review now or really any review? It comes out Friday, go and see it if you want and than form an opinion. You could even read reviews the day of the release before you decide to go!

Is that complicated?

 

[InklingStar]

We all enjoy free speech in this country. Any reviewer granted an early screening is free to tell us all about it. But by doing so, they will guarantee that no studio will ever invite them to another early screening, ever.

It is a mutual relationship. The studios grant early access to the journalists, who in turn honor the studios' requests to hold the reviews until a certain date. No big deal.

 

[JarodRussell]

We all enjoy free speech in this country. Any reviewer granted an early screening is free to tell us all about it. But by doing so, they will guarantee that no studio will ever invite them to another early screening, ever.

It is a mutual relationship. The studios grant early access to the journalists, who in turn honor the studios' requests to hold the reviews until a certain date. No big deal.

And I don't agree with that.

Why do you even need a review now or really any review? It comes out Friday, go and see it if you want and than form an opinion. You could even read reviews the day of the release before you decide to go!

That's not even the point, Donald. I don't read early reviews at all. But I find the idea of an embargo on reviews, and that reviewers are blindly accepting that gag ordering of greedy studios/companies, incredibly stupid.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Again the embargo most likely has to do with containing spoilers than it does with gagging reactions. Those who have seen the film already have been mind blown with it.

 

[Trekker4747]

We all enjoy free speech in this country. Any reviewer granted an early screening is free to tell us all about it. But by doing so, they will guarantee that no studio will ever invite them to another early screening, ever.

It is a mutual relationship. The studios grant early access to the journalists, who in turn honor the studios' requests to hold the reviews until a certain date. No big deal.

And I don't agree with that.

Why do you even need a review now or really any review? It comes out Friday, go and see it if you want and than form an opinion. You could even read reviews the day of the release before you decide to go!

That's not even the point, Donald. I don't read early reviews at all. But I find the idea of an embargo on reviews, and that reviewers are blindly accepting that gag ordering of greedy studios, incredibly stupid.

No one forces the reviewers to sign and agree to the embargo. Sure if they don't agree to it they don't get to see and thus review the movie but no one is forcing their hand. The studio has the right to protect its IP and how information about it is released prior to when it officially is available. Publishers of books and studios do the same thing with DVD releases, the retailers are under restrictions on when they can put the book/item on the shelf.

Now, sure, they can do it early if they wanted to but then they'd suffer consequences most likely being that particular distributer not working with them anymore. It's an all agreed upon process by both parties who know what they are getting into.

If you're a movie reviewer you know going into a private screening you're not going to be allowed to discuss things until a certain time. If you don't like it no one is making you go to the screening. If you DO go to the screening you're making the choice to agree to the contract, terms, and conditions of the screening.

All of this is an agreement between two independent entities and is nothing like Nazi Germany as you alluded to earlier.

 

[JarodRussell]

No one forces the reviewers to sign and agree to the embargo. Sure if they don't agree to it they don't get to see and thus review the movie but no one is forcing their hand. The studio has the right to protect its IP and how information about it is released prior to when it officially is available. Publishers of books and studios do the same thing with DVD releases, the retailers are under restrictions on when they can put the book/item on the shelf.

Now, sure, they can do it early if they wanted to but then they'd suffer consequences most likely being that particular distributer not working with them anymore. It's an all agreed upon process by both parties who know what they are getting into.

If you're a movie reviewer you know going into a private screening you're not going to be allowed to discuss things until a certain time. If you don't like it no one is making you go to the screening. If you DO go to the screening you're making the choice to agree to the contract, terms, and conditions of the screening.

You agree with that practice? Well good for you.

 

[Professor Zoom]

That's not even the point, Donald. I don't read early reviews at all. But I find the idea of an embargo on reviews, and that reviewers are blindly accepting that gag ordering of greedy studios/companies, incredibly stupid.

They aren't "blindly" accepting. Their eyes are WIDE open. This isn't a big deal. You comparing movie reviews to Nazi Germany is just silly.

 

[Trekker4747]

You agree with that practice? Well good for you.

Wouldn't say I "agree" with it, but I don't disagree with it. I'm indifferent to it overall. There's no harm behind it, it's an agreement between two parties and its under no coercion by a government entity, and the "dominant' entity (the studio) certainly has their reasons behind it (not wanting plot details out early, not wanting negative press too early, etc) the submissive entity (the screeners) goes into it willingly knowing the terms of the agreement and consequences of breaking it.

It's harmless. Boo-hoo, I don't get to read what Ebert or the local paper has to say about this movie until Friday. I think I can handle that.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, at least they're not demanding embargos for the first weekend, or the first week. But, who knows, maybe in ten years we're there.


It's another example of companies trying to cope with the Internet age in silly ways.

They aren't "blindly" accepting. Their eyes are WIDE open. This isn't a big deal. You comparing movie reviews to Nazi Germany is just silly.

Eh, I'm pretty sure Hitler enforced review embargos on Leni Riefenstahl films. So don't try to gloss over, sugarcoat and relativize my tongue in cheek and clearly exaggerated comparison.

 

[Trekker4747]

Well, at least they're not demanding embargos for the first weekend, or the first week. But, who knows, maybe in ten years we're there.

No, doing so would be ridiculous, they have the embargo to prevent prerelease spoilers and information from possibly damaging the opening weekend's numbers.

It's another example of companies trying to cope with the Internet age in silly ways.

Companies have had embargoes on product reviews for decades, long, long before the internet.

Eh, I'm pretty sure Hitler enforced review embargos on Leni Riefenstahl films. So don't try to gloss over, sugarcoat and relativize my tongue in cheek and clearly exaggerated comparison.

It's an absurd comparison because what Hitler did -as ruler of a body of people and a population- in order to control the flow of information and how it was presented is a very, very different than Warner Brothers telling The New York Times, "Hey, do you mind waiting until Friday of the release date to put up a review of our movie? We don't want too much information out too soon, okay?"

Jesus, there's mountains out of molehills then there's making Olympus Mons out of molehills.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Once again anyone reviewer could say "What, the fuck, I going to post it right away!". The studio goons are not going to show up at their door. It will just affect future business dealings.

I used to clean offices at a cheese factory. My employer was an outside contractor. We all had to sign confidentiality agreements. That we would not reveal intellectual property we heard or saw to outsiders.That was actuallyl more limiting than than this situation. They eventually are allowed to reveal what they saw. This is common and no big deal.

Oh and the place I cleaned (in Plymouth, WI....) was full of fucking slobs... Oh shit the Cheese Police are going to get me.

 

[sidious618]

I didn't realize a review embargo meant the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[Captrek]

Civilization as we knew it ended a couple of weeks ago with the Supreme Court ruling on healthcare reform. The civilization that replaced that one was strangled in its crib by TDKR movie review embargoes. At the rate we're going through civilizations, we're going to run out.

 

[Dream]

Well, at least they're not demanding embargos for the first weekend, or the first week. But, who knows, maybe in ten years we're there.

If that happened critics would just go see the movies the weekend they were released and put up their reviews by Sunday.

 

[JarodRussell]

I used to clean offices at a cheese factory. My employer was an outside contractor. We all had to sign confidentiality agreements. That we would not reveal intellectual property we heard or saw to outsiders.That was actuallyl more limiting than than this situation. They eventually are allowed to reveal what they saw. This is common and no big deal.

LOL, am I seriously the only one who sees the difference between reviewing a finished product and releasing internal information?

 

[stj]

Studio written confidentiality agreements violate the independence of the reviewers. Formally everything that violates that is a disservice to the people who use reviews to guide their movie choices.

But is it an important violation? I'm sorry, it seems to me that the reviewing system is amazingly corrupted already. This issue is fairly trivial.

 

[Warped9]

Studio written confidentiality agreements violate the independence of the reviewers. Formally everything that violates that is a disservice to the people who use reviews to guide their movie choices.

But is it an important violation? I'm sorry, it seems to me that the reviewing system is amazingly corrupted already. This issue is fairly trivial.

There is no violation of any kind if the reviewer agrees to the arrangement. You don't want to sign then you wait to see the film with the rest of the public and print your review afterward. Of course all the other media outlets will already have their reviews printed and posted for the public to read over their morning coffee.

 

[Sindatur]

Studio written confidentiality agreements violate the independence of the reviewers. Formally everything that violates that is a disservice to the people who use reviews to guide their movie choices.

But is it an important violation? I'm sorry, it seems to me that the reviewing system is amazingly corrupted already. This issue is fairly trivial.

Violating their independence, LOL, that's absurd. They are not told what they have to write, they are free to BBQ the movie in the most scathing terms if they want to.

And Jarrod's ridiculous claim it's like Nazi Germany and a violation of Free Speech, OMG? The Free Speech Guarantee in the Constitution says, "Congress cannot make any laws restricting..." There is no Government involved here, therefore, there is no Free Speech involved here.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Eh, I'm not seeing the big deal... seems like both sides are doing each other a favor- "We'll let you see our new movie well before anyone else gets to. But in exchange for this, you can't reveal anything about it until a couple days before the official release."

They could just make the reviewers watch it with the rest of us nobodies and the reviews wouldn't be available until after the movie opens.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Eh, I'm pretty sure Hitler enforced review embargos on Leni Riefenstahl films. So don't try to gloss over, sugarcoat and relativize my tongue in cheek and clearly exaggerated comparison.

So, then you're just trolling?