Universal snubs the on-line comminity: No reviews of E.T. and Back to the Future (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Kleist]

Paul, no screener discs were sent to the Bits, and I'm told that Peter got DVDFile's through his own means as well

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Personally, I love Peter Bracke and his site,
but I am a bit disappointed that he reviews
titles that studios refuse to provide as screeners.

I know I sure wouldn't be doing any favors for
a studio that has cut off the water main.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Personally, I love Peter Bracke and his site,
but I am a bit disappointed that he reviews
titles that studios refuse to provide as screeners.

I know I sure wouldn't be doing any favors for
a studio that has cut off the water main.

While I understand this sentiment and agree with it to a degree, I think you ignore one factor: sites owe something to their readers. I'm going to review ET even without a screener - it's far to massive a title for me to ignore it. Does this send the wrong message to Universal, since they can assume they don't need to send screeners and they'll still get product reviews online? Perhaps, but a lot of people will want info about ET, and I think it's responsible for me to write about it.

I don't espouse reviewers dropping their own cash and titles they wouldn't buy otherwise, but for me, ET is an absolutely must-have. If I own a copy of it, I'll review it. I'm not happy about the screener situation with Universal, but I do think we owe it to our visitors to give them appropriate coverage...

 

[Jesse Leonard]

I'm not happy about the screener situation with Universal, but I do think we owe it to our visitors to give them appropriate coverage...

Perfectly stated!

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Is the purpose of a review site to do a favor for studios by giving them free publicity, or to do a favor for the readers by helping them to make informed purchases?
Maybe the unavoidable reality is that for many sites the answer will be some of both.
But I'd like to thank DVDFile, DVD Movie Guide, and other sites for reviewing these non-screener titles for us.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I for one am glad that DVD File and The Digital Bits have reviewed E.T. Not only do we get the (somewhat) early reviews, but they have a chance to trash Universal's policies

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Universal seems to be in the habit of screwing the pooch lately (maybe they've aquired a new hobby ) when it comes to their more recent DVD releases; especially after the messy Jurassic Park (messed up DTS track, lousy extras crammed into one DVD), Jaws (wonderful 2 hour plus documentary cut to ribbons because of no two disc set and no original mono track to go along with the remix), E.T., and BTTF debacles (no wonder they don't want reviews)-- notice they're all some of Spielberg's (he directed most of them, and produced and some say helped direct BTTF) most hugely popular titles (do they have something against the man??).
Perhaps it's time for a reorganization of their home video division (ie firings a-plenty). Let's just pray that HD-DVD is treated better.
Dan

 

[MatS]

hmmmmm, very interesting

Posted: October 14th, 2002 01:37 AM
Post (#185 of 208 posts) MatS

without reading through the whole thread

it clear why they don't want the online community reviewing their dvds....it is because we are a better source of QC than they have.

Plus the quieter we are about any flaws the less flack they will get when they reissue the movie umpteen times down the road in different editions.

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Prophetic to say the least.