Cut or redefine: Not Screened For Critics

The current issue with this is that it's on the main page as an objective trope, but half of the definition is that the work sucks. It either needs to lose the "the work sucks" aspect, or get cut most likely, as "this work sucks" is not something that belongs on the main wiki.

I'm personally in favor of cutting myself. If the whole "advertisement" aspect of it could be split off, I'd rather do that elsewhere.

It is objectively done. That makes it a trope that should stay. The complaining aspect should be cut.

The most objective way of putting this is, "Media critics are not given a preview screening for a movie because the movie's producers/studio backers/etc. were not confident that it would be well received by them."

The movie does not need to be bad, per se; whoever is putting it out for distribution just fears that the press may hurt the movie's best chances to make as much money as possible. Mind you, that may be because the distributors themselves aren't proud of the film or its quality, but that is not to say that a member of the general public who watches the movie cannot like it.

This, too.

edited 6th Feb '12 1:17:55 PM by SeanMurrayI

I think it's objective, but it's Trivia, not a trope.

And all of the "this work is terribad" crap in most cases?

This is certainly a trope, but given the examples it attracts maybe it should just have no examples ever.

It's kind of hard for the average editor to know which films exactly were not screened for critics, anyway.

It's usually only something anyone ever notices the day a movie opens in theaters and there aren't any reviews for it alongside the other new releases. That said, nobody who doesn't regularly read movie reviews every Friday is ever going to likely notice.

And this should be trivia. The occurrence has nothing to do with the work/story itself.

edited 5th Jan '12 9:02:19 AM by SeanMurrayI

They don't have to be "bad" not screened might be because of a tight launch window, extreme secrecy, or the makers thought it would be to the critics taste etc. However yes it is trivia.

I think we should keep it to define the term, since it's far more relevant to our mission than fanspeak and we keep that around. However, it's definitely trivia, not a trope. The description can be considerably trimmed down and made more neutral. It doesn't even mention that it can be for reasons other than "the movie is terrible and they know it" until the 6th paragraph.

The examples don't seem too complain-y and natter-y, at least at a glance. Some of them even mention that the movie was good or went on to perform well. I'm pretty neutral on keeping or getting rid of them.

edited 5th Jan '12 9:15:44 AM by ccoa

There might be ways to verify if they were screened or not.

Only by keeping up to speed with entertainment news and movie reviews.

If a film's distributors don't give critics and press an advanced screening, there might be a small blurb somewhere a few days in advance reporting this. Otherwise, it might be noted in reviews that aren't published until a day or two after the movie had opened. Those are really the only ways anyone ever finds out about something like this.

edited 5th Jan '12 9:59:20 AM by SeanMurrayI

If you guys think it should be trivia, please vote in the trivia crowner.

I think this should be a trivia page about works that aren't screened for critics. However, the description and laconic's going to need some rewriting, and the image probably needs to be changed.

This page is now classified as Trivia. Do we need to do anything else here?

I'd still push for a tweaked description that tones down the "this is a warning sign that a movie isn't good" sentiment. Something more akin to how I phrased the occurrence in post #4 would sound a little less negative and opinionated.

edited 6th Feb '12 1:14:08 PM by SeanMurrayI

I support calling it Trivia.

It's currently in the Trivia namespace. I think we're done. Wait, did anyone do the complaint sweep? I can do so if necessary.