LogFAQs > #914656806

darkjedilink posted...

Serious Cat posted...

darkjedilink posted...

That's code for 'stop giving us bad reviews, and you can come back.'

The first clue that you're completely wrong is that the ban wasn't over reviews at all. Your second clue is that other critics were voluntarily boycotting Disney press screeners and disqualifying Disney from year-end critic awards until the ban was lifted. Someone had leverage here, but it wasn't Disney.

Ha ha, okay. The movie studio that owns half of Hollywood, and a third of television media, had to give in because three newspapers weren't going to give them awards.

If you really believe that, I got some beautiful oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Real cheap, too.

The statement followed declarations by the Los Angeles Film Critics Assn. (which includes Times staff writers), New York Film Critics Circle, Boston Society of Film Critics, National Society of Film Critics and Toronto Film Critics Assn. that Disney films would be ineligible for year-end awards consideration for as long as Times film critics were banned from advance screenings.

It's not simply 3 newspapers. It's multiple widespread critic associations, which you would understand if you read the article. If these associations stop previewing, reviewing, and talking about Disney movies that's a massive advertising avenue that disappears, which means Disney now has to pump even more into their own advertising efforts and bloat their budgets even further. We're living in a time where Rotten Tomatoes scores, for better or worse, heavily influence the habits of movie goers. There's a reason high scoring movies use that number and tomato on adverts, because it sells. If people go to rotten tomatoes and see that there's no score there, it's a bad sign and it will keep movie goers from the theater.
---

*runs out of topic naked*