LA Times: Is Disney Paying Its Fair Share In Anaheim

[Disney Irish]

That was far from the only part of the deal. Large multiplex's can handle it and make it up on the backend. They can put Last Jedi in their largest theater for at least 4 weeks (also part of the terms.) Smaller theaters can't afford to do that and miss out on other new releases. Many smaller theaters with only 1 screen or a few have a very tough decision and some are skipping. The margins are very slim at 35% if they don't hit it big with concessions.

If those theater don't have the ability or room to house Jedi for the terms Disney has set, then they have the right not to show it. Disney is not forcing anyone to show the film, only that if you show it then you follow their terms. Disney wants to make sure it keeps Jedi in front of as many eyes as possible for as long as possible. And yes, even 3-4 weeks later you will still see theaters pretty full in major cities, just like with Force Awakens. I remember going to see another movie almost 6 weeks after Force Awakens came out and there were still lines for it.

The Star Wars franchise might not be for everyone, but for fans its like a religion. One they are willing to pay over and over to partake in.

 

[Disney Irish]

Exactly. By pressuring the LAT and simultaneously praising the OC Register Disney has deliberately underscored once again that it will use questionable tactics and persuasion to get what it wants, which was the whole focus of the LAT piece that started this debate in first place.

Had the LA Times presented those same facts in their story that the OC Register did I would have called it a fair and balanced article. Then if the reader wants to come out on the side of Anaheim they are at least more informed about the topic. By leaving most, if not all, out it comes across as one-sided to me and it appears others have the same opinion.

 

[Disney Irish]

I agree that the most fair review is one where the reviewer was not given special access or paid in any way for a review. In this case however one outlet is being denied access it normally receives because they said something Disney didn't like.



They are asking for the same access given to other outlets of similar scope and more importantly they are calling foul because they are being denied access and you could argue being put at a competitive disadvantage for being critical. It's the same thing when there are arguments over which blogs get invited to special parks events. The message Disney is sending is publish nice things about us and we'll give you inside access. Publish things we don't like and we'll prevent you access. They have a right to do this, but it raises questions as well.

Overall this was a minor "revenge tactic" but one that Disney was dumb to pursue. In this time when there is a lot of sensitivity over freedom of the press being attacked, Disney had to have seen this would do nothing but draw more attention to the issue they were trying to suppress. It had largely gone away on its own and now the articles and issue has been brought to the forefront. I'm guessing Disney will soon back tract by saying it was only for one movie and it will be over.

This calls into question the whole special media preview access in the first place. The media should review the movie with the general pubic just like other reviewers. There are early enough showing for most movies on Thursdays now that they can watch it, review it, and still make to press for the morning edition on Friday. And since most of these reviewer only post online anyways, they can still post it before everyone else wakes up on Friday.

I'll give a perfect example, what about independent movies? They don't offer special previews, because they can't afford. But yet these reviewers STILL review it. So how do they do it? Oh wait, they buy a ticket and watch it just like everyone else.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

This calls into question the whole special media preview access in the first place. The media should review the movie with the general pubic just like other reviewers. There are early enough showing for most movies on Thursdays now that they can watch it, review it, and still make to press for the morning edition on Friday. And since most of these reviewer only post online anyways, they can still post it before everyone else wakes up on Friday.

I'll give a perfect example, what about independent movies? They don't offer special previews, because they can't afford. But yet these reviewers STILL review it. So how do they do it? Oh wait, they buy a ticket and watch it just like everyone else.

Unfortunately, we live in a society where some people's opinions of movies are dependent on these pre-release reviewers. I had a roommate who wouldn't buy a ticket to a film that his favorite reviewer didn't look upon favorably.

Pre-release reviews can either kill or enhance a film's hype, directly impacting its BO figures and overall revenue. I'm more than happy to do away with them altogether.

What's also interesting to me is that 99% of film "critics" aren't filmmakers themselves and would be absolutely awful at doing it themselves...yet they feel because they've seen enough films that they know what makes one "good" or "bad". Sorry, bit of a tangent rant there.

 

[Disney Irish]

Unfortunately, we live in a society where some people's opinions of movies are dependent on these pre-release reviewers. I had a roommate who wouldn't buy a ticket to a film that his favorite reviewer didn't look upon favorably.

Pre-release reviews can either kill or enhance a film's hype, directly impacting its BO figures and overall revenue. I'm more than happy to do away with them altogether.

What's also interesting to me is that 99% of film "critics" aren't filmmakers themselves and would be absolutely awful at doing it themselves...yet they feel because they've seen enough films that they know what makes one "good" or "bad". Sorry, bit of a tangent rant there.

But again this goes back to what I mentioned, what about independent films? These same reviewers still review these independent films but don't get special access to see them. So if everyone is concerned about fair play why isn't anyone bringing up that independent films are treated different? Shouldn't all films be reviewed the same in the same manner?

In a personal note, I haven't trusted reviewers since before both Siskel and Ebert died. I don't agree with most of what they say, and usually like the movies they pan.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

But again this goes back to what I mentioned, what about independent films? These same reviewers still review these independent films but don't get special access to see them. So if everyone is concerned about fair play why isn't anyone bringing up that independent films are treated different? Shouldn't all films be reviewed the same in the same manner?

In a personal note, I haven't trusted reviewers since before both Siskel and Ebert died. I don't agree with most of what they say, and usually like the movies they pan.

I don't have a good answer on the independent movie front.

 

[Travel Junkie]

But none of the theaters have to show star wars. If Disney's conditions make it so it won't be financially viable to play the movie, the theaters shouldn't play it.

Ummm Yeah. Everyone knows that. What's your point?

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

http://deadline.com/2017/11/disney-lifts-ban-los-angeles-times-critics-1202203647/

And just like that, Disney lifts the ban. Now back to your regularly scheduled conversations.

 

[Californian Elitist]

http://deadline.com/2017/11/disney-lifts-ban-los-angeles-times-critics-1202203647/

And just like that, Disney lifts the ban. Now back to your regularly scheduled conversations.

LMAO.

 

[Disney Irish]

http://deadline.com/2017/11/disney-lifts-ban-los-angeles-times-critics-1202203647/

And just like that, Disney lifts the ban. Now back to your regularly scheduled conversations.

“We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “And as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics.”

One has to wonder what those discussions were composed of....
And did the LA Times get new leadership since the original article was written?

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

“We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “And as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics.”

One has to wonder what those discussions were composed of....
And did the LA Times get new leadership since the original article was written?

Haha no idea.
That article I linked was suspiciously sparse in details...

 

[c-one]

Unfortunately, we live in a society where some people's opinions of movies are dependent on these pre-release reviewers. I had a roommate who wouldn't buy a ticket to a film that his favorite reviewer didn't look upon favorably.

Pre-release reviews can either kill or enhance a film's hype, directly impacting its BO figures and overall revenue. I'm more than happy to do away with them altogether.

What's also interesting to me is that 99% of film "critics" aren't filmmakers themselves and would be absolutely awful at doing it themselves...yet they feel because they've seen enough films that they know what makes one "good" or "bad". Sorry, bit of a tangent rant there.

I fail to see the problem here. I'm not here to spend 2 hours and whatever stupid price movie tickets cost now on something that turns out to be hot garbage. There are too many movies, too many records, too many restaurants in the world for me to savor each and every one. Especially in this time where high art has lost to commerce. I barely have enough time to argue with Disney nerds on the internet as it is. The critics and curators occupy their high perch in the media for this reason, to sort through the crap and save the rest of us time and money.

And I don't care if a film critic is a good filmmaker. They're different jobs. Hell, there are more than enough filmmakers that are too high off the smell of their own to tell good from bad anymore. There are many ways to be an expert. Maybe I wouldn't trust the film critic's opinions on how the set was managed, but if a filmmaker is creating art that only other filmmakers have the authority to comment on, that seems like a great way to not make money at the box office. I enjoy artistic endeavors, and I also enjoy quality writing that reacts to those endeavors and gives them their context in our wider society. If I'm watching a football game I don't want the defensive lineman to also be the head coach, and vice versa. And if the coach sucks, I hope the local sports columnist puts him on blast until he gets it sorted out.

 

[Disney Irish]

Haha no idea.
That article I linked was suspiciously sparse in details...

Disney likely wasn't worried about the financial impact but rather the awards season...

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

Disney likely wasn't worried about the financial impact but rather the awards season...

Ah yes. Tis the season.

 

[Travel Junkie]

I'll give a perfect example, what about independent movies? They don't offer special previews, because they can't afford. But yet these reviewers STILL review it. So how do they do it? Oh wait, they buy a ticket and watch it just like everyone else.

Most independent films have been seen in advance of their release and reviews are often published in advance of the premiere date. Film festivals, screeners etc. So no they didn't buy a ticket like everyone else. For instance a film like Raw that was released in early 2017 had its first reviews in mid 2016 as it was on the festival circuit.

I actually agree with you though. The advance screenings were put in to build buzz for a film if it is a positive review. Now the studios and stars can take care of the marketing on their own. They really aren't needed anymore. It's an outdated model.

 

[Darkbeer1]

“We’ve had productive discussions with the newly installed leadership at The Los Angeles Times regarding our specific concerns,” a spokesperson said in a statement. “And as a result, we’ve agreed to restore access to advance screenings for their film critics.”

One has to wonder what those discussions were composed of....
And did the LA Times get new leadership since the original article was written?

Yes they did. Lewis D'Vorkin was named the new editor in chief October 9th, and officially started on November 1st. He came from Forbes, but has had other similar jobs with multiple companies. A new president of the LA Times Media Group was also named the same day. So the statement is very valid.

 

[Disney Irish]

I fail to see the problem here. I'm not here to spend 2 hours and whatever stupid price movie tickets cost now on something that turns out to be hot garbage. There are too many movies, too many records, too many restaurants in the world for me to savor each and every one. Especially in this time where high art has lost to commerce. I barely have enough time to argue with Disney nerds on the internet as it is. The critics and curators occupy their high perch in the media for this reason, to sort through the crap and save the rest of us time and money.

And I don't care if a film critic is a good filmmaker. They're different jobs. Hell, there are more than enough filmmakers that are too high off the smell of their own **** to tell good from bad anymore. There are many ways to be an expert. Maybe I wouldn't trust the film critic's opinions on how the set was managed, but if a filmmaker is creating art that only other filmmakers have the authority to comment on, that seems like a great way to not make money at the box office. I enjoy artistic endeavors, and I also enjoy quality writing that reacts to those endeavors and gives them their context in our wider society. If I'm watching a football game I don't want the defensive lineman to also be the head coach, and vice versa. And if the coach sucks, I hope the local sports columnist puts him on blast until he gets it sorted out.

Yeah but even sports writers are being given less and less access to teams as time has gone on. Even now most are only given very limit access to players and coaches and usually limited to a 5 minute block of time. And teams do revoke access to writers that blatantly provide incorrect or incomplete information in their reporting. But yet I don't see anyone screaming how teams against free press and the rights of journalist.

 

[Hatbox Ghostbuster]

I fail to see the problem here. I'm not here to spend 2 hours and whatever stupid price movie tickets cost now on something that turns out to be hot garbage. There are too many movies, too many records, too many restaurants in the world for me to savor each and every one. Especially in this time where high art has lost to commerce. I barely have enough time to argue with Disney nerds on the internet as it is. The critics and curators occupy their high perch in the media for this reason, to sort through the crap and save the rest of us time and money.

And I don't care if a film critic is a good filmmaker. They're different jobs. Hell, there are more than enough filmmakers that are too high off the smell of their own **** to tell good from bad anymore. There are many ways to be an expert. Maybe I wouldn't trust the film critic's opinions on how the set was managed, but if a filmmaker is creating art that only other filmmakers have the authority to comment on, that seems like a great way to not make money at the box office. I enjoy artistic endeavors, and I also enjoy quality writing that reacts to those endeavors and gives them their context in our wider society. If I'm watching a football game I don't want the defensive lineman to also be the head coach, and vice versa. And if the coach sucks, I hope the local sports columnist puts him on blast until he gets it sorted out.

No one is asking you to savor each one. Just the ones that look interesting to you, regardless of what so and so critic thought of it beforehand. As someone in the creative field, it really sucks knowing that people will turn their nose up at your offering before even setting foot in a theatre just because Mr. Stuffed Shirt "critic" found it not to be to his liking.

As for filmmaker and film critic being two different jobs, yes they are. Filmmaking is a studied and learned skill practiced over time, while film criticism is a totally subjective opinion that can just be pulled out of one's proverbial backside at a whim and emotionally swayed, yet somehow it's more readily valued than the efforts of the filmmaker.

 

[c-one]

Yeah but even sports writers are being given less and less access to teams as time has gone on. Even now most are only given very limit access to players and coaches and usually limited to a 5 minute block of time. And teams do revoke access to writers that blatantly provide incorrect or incomplete information in their reporting. But yet I don't see anyone screaming how teams against free press and the rights of journalist.

Well, there was the time that the Redskins owner tried to sue (but ultimately gave up) the Washington City Paper for libel over an article that was chock full of unflattering facts.

There was the MLBPA head trying to get the media banned from clubhouses entirely before games. Which, maybe there is an argument there, but his effort wasn't successful.

That's just off the top of my head. Point being that I don't think sports fans are better off with less access to the teams and players they cover. It's the same story as this LAT thing; one person's unfair coverage is another person's unflattering-but-useful coverage.

 

[Disney Irish]

Most independent films have been seen in advance of their release and reviews are often published in advance of the premiere date. Film festivals, screeners etc. So no they didn't buy a ticket like everyone else. For instance a film like Raw that was released in early 2017 had its first reviews in mid 2016 as it was on the festival circuit.

Now the question is, do all these same reviewers actually attend the film festivals and actually watch all the independents they review. Or are they limited in time and so have to watch it later when its released or not even attend the festivals at all.

I actually agree with you though. The advance screenings were put in to build buzz for a film if it is a positive review. Now the studios and stars can take care of the marketing on their own. They really aren't needed anymore. It's an outdated model.

Additionally with new distribution models like NetFlix independent films are not making the theater runs.