|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 4, 2017 0:49:48 GMT
Disney Bans the LA Times From Seeing Its Movies
By Mansoor Mithaiwala
Disney is banning the Los Angeles Times from attending advanced screenings of their movies. As a southern California newspaper, in addition to publishing film criticism, the Times frequently covers Disneyland Resort and Disney California Adventure, as well as how both parks affect the city of Anaheim. And in September, they published an article that painted Disney in a bad light, and the Mouse House challenged their outlook.
The Times annually publishes a Holiday Movie Preview, and this year, Disney isn’t on that list because the paper was reportedly barred for their “unfair coverage” The Mouse House traditionally screens their films for the press approximately one week to one month, if not longer, in advance of the film hitting theaters, but now, the LA Times won’t be part of that press list going forward, at least for the foreseeable future.
The decision on Disney’s part begs many questions. If an outlet writes negatively about Walt Disney Studios or any of its sister divisions, will the Mouse House blacklist that outlet, as well? What’s more, the LA Times is one of the oldest and most respected newspapers in the country, not a personal blog or YouTube review channel. So, to ban them from advanced screenings due to an investigative piece about their theme park unit and its connection with Anaheim, which is unrelated to their movie division, is concerning, to say the least.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 1:05:10 GMT
That explains a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Nov 4, 2017 1:47:50 GMT
the Evil Empire
|
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 4, 2017 2:58:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 4, 2017 3:41:37 GMT
formersamhmd's favorite phrase is "artificial boosters". Well, this proves once and for all that MCU's high ratings are all due to "artificial boosters". MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. That reduces the number of rotten reviews, thereby giving an "artificial booster" to their ratings. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 3:47:33 GMT
formersamhmd's favorite phrase is "artificial boosters". Well, this proves once and for all that MCU's high ratings are all due to "artificial boosters". MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. That reduces the number of rotten reviews, thereby giving an "artificial booster" to their ratings. They love censorship. Alternate opinions are not allowed. They learnt this from their dictator heroes. |
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 4, 2017 4:37:19 GMT
formersamhmd's favorite phrase is "artificial boosters". Well, this proves once and for all that MCU's high ratings are all due to "artificial boosters". MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. That reduces the number of rotten reviews, thereby giving an "artificial booster" to their ratings. This is what we call a smoking gun. Basically proves exactly what you said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2017 4:58:58 GMT
formersamhmd's favorite phrase is "artificial boosters". Well, this proves once and for all that MCU's high ratings are all due to "artificial boosters". MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. That reduces the number of rotten reviews, thereby giving an "artificial booster" to their ratings. This is what we call a smoking gun. Basically proves exactly what you said. I think it also extends to the bedroom where MCU guys need artificial boosters for their softness issues. I noticed that this board was very quiet when you asked who had copulated recently. And I’m wondering this is why they love dictators and how it gives them the vicarious power which they lack in their trousers? |
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Nov 4, 2017 9:42:54 GMT
This doesn't surprise me one bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 4, 2017 10:02:46 GMT
This is a prime example how a dominant market position works, and how naive the notion is that Disney or its subsidiaries "bribe" the critics. No, they are too powerful and influential to have to do that. It's far more subtle.
You do not bite the had (too hard) that feeds you. That simple.
The system works commercially: media platforms do not get main revenue from selling physical products anymore, they need paid advertisement contents (ads, raffles or other promotional content) often overlapping with "critical" reviews that resemble marketing texts more than veritable criticism. Other factors are that you are not invited to major event and thus have a significant market disadvantage.
Old Donald tried it too with the White House media (with less success). Anyone who has worked with market leaders like Disney or has seen the amount of unfair competition cases in that particular sector knows what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Nov 4, 2017 10:07:03 GMT
It's frustrating to mostly enjoy the MCU and new Star Wars but simultaneously hate the people putting them out.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 4, 2017 12:57:01 GMT
This is a prime example how a dominant market position works, and how naive the notion is that Disney or its subsidiaries "bribe" the critics. No, they are too powerful and influential to have to do that. It's far more subtle. You do not bite the had (too hard) that feeds you. That simple. The system works commercially: media platforms do not get main revenue from selling physical products anymore, they need paid advertisement contents (ads, raffles or other promotional content) often overlapping with "critical" reviews that resemble marketing texts more than veritable criticism. Other factors are that you are not invited to major event and thus have a significant market disadvantage. Old Donald tried it too with the White House media (with less success). Anyone who has worked with market leaders like Disney or has seen the amount of unfair competition cases in that particular sector knows what I'm talking about. So you're saying, in sum: they don't need to "rig" the system because they are the system. Innit? |
|
|
|
Post by Jedan Archer on Nov 4, 2017 13:10:39 GMT
This is a prime example how a dominant market position works, and how naive the notion is that Disney or its subsidiaries "bribe" the critics. No, they are too powerful and influential to have to do that. It's far more subtle. You do not bite the had (too hard) that feeds you. That simple. The system works commercially: media platforms do not get main revenue from selling physical products anymore, they need paid advertisement contents (ads, raffles or other promotional content) often overlapping with "critical" reviews that resemble marketing texts more than veritable criticism. Other factors are that you are not invited to major event and thus have a significant market disadvantage. Old Donald tried it too with the White House media (with less success). Anyone who has worked with market leaders like Disney or has seen the amount of unfair competition cases in that particular sector knows what I'm talking about. So you're saying, in sum: they don't need to "rig" the system because they are the system. Innit? Essentially yes, not a monopolists, but a dominant market position and selling this kind of product make you the one who knocks.
![]() ![]() ![]()
![]() |
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Nov 4, 2017 13:18:14 GMT
So you're saying, in sum: they don't need to "rig" the system because they are the system. Innit? Essentially yes, not a monopolists, but a dominant market position and selling this kind of product make you the one who knocks.
![]() ![]() ![]()
![]() as they say, the Mouse always wins (except in Vegas).  |
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Nov 4, 2017 21:43:08 GMT
This is what we call a smoking gun. Basically proves exactly what you said. I think it also extends to the bedroom where MCU guys need artificial boosters for their softness issues. I noticed that this board was very quiet when you asked who had copulated recently. And I’m wondering this is why they love dictators and how it gives them the vicarious power which they lack in their trousers? And if everyone replied that they had copulated recently, would you have believed them anyway? |
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Nov 5, 2017 0:02:53 GMT
I think it also extends to the bedroom where MCU guys need artificial boosters for their softness issues. I noticed that this board was very quiet when you asked who had copulated recently. And I’m wondering this is why they love dictators and how it gives them the vicarious power which they lack in their trousers? And if everyone replied that they had copulated recently, would you have believed them anyway? And seriously, that question was a flat-out virgin-shaming.
Speaking of which, shame on the person who asked that question in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Nov 5, 2017 2:32:20 GMT
And if everyone replied that they had copulated recently, would you have believed them anyway? And seriously, that question was a flat-out virgin-shaming.
Speaking of which, shame on the person who asked that question in the first place.
So basically you've never gotten laid. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Nov 5, 2017 2:37:34 GMT
And seriously, that question was a flat-out virgin-shaming.
Speaking of which, shame on the person who asked that question in the first place.
So basically you've never gotten laid. I called the police the other day, but took him four hours to arrive, so I said "cop u late" |
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on Nov 5, 2017 2:50:49 GMT
MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. Disney is not, and can not, ban the LA Times from seeing its movies. The LA Times critics can go see (and review) Disney movies, just like everyone else. A LA Times critic was not banned from seeing Thor Ragnarok. He gave it a positive review on RT ... proving DC-Fanboy wrong on every count. Again. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Nov 5, 2017 2:55:56 GMT
MCU artificially drives up their ratings by banning those who they think would give them rotten reviews. Disney is not, and can not, ban the LA Times from seeing its movies. The LA Times critics can go see (and review) Disney movies, just like everyone else. Yes, the LA Times critics have to see MCU movies like everyone else, when it's released in theaters and not when at the pre-release screenings, which they're banned from. That's how MCU drives up their ratings. By banning critics they think would give them unfavorable reviews. So that gives an "artificial booster" to their ratings before the movie is released.
By the time the LA Times critics sees the movie in theaters, the reviews (which has gotten an "artificial booster" from banning critics that MCU thinks will give them unfavorable reviews) have already been mostly favorable (because MCU banned critics that MCU thinks will give them unfavorable reviews from the pre-release screenings). So that gives the artificial perception that the movie is rated really high when in reality it was only rated by critics hand-picked by MCU while MCU banned critics that MCU thinks will give them unfavorable reviews from the pre-release screenings.
That's what MCU did with Ragnarok. Pre-release, Ragnarok's RT rating was 99% because MCU banned critics they thought would gve them unfavorable reviews from the pre-release screening. Now that Ragnarok's been released, the number of rotten reviews has already tripled and the rating has dropped from 99% to 93%, putting it below The Dark Knight. But because MCU banned critics who they thought would give them unfavorable reviews from the pre-release screenings, the news headlines pre-release were "Thor: Ragnarok is highest rated superhero movie ever". But we know that isn't true since the rating has had a huge drop since the release now that critics that MCU banned from the pre-release screenings have finally been able to give their rating.
|
|
