Quote:
Originally Posted by One Horse town  Imagine a billboard poster for a film.
King Kong
A wonderfully entertaining and scary tale - New York Times
Would you say that the NYT was involved in some way with the film? or because the critic liked it he shouldn't be able to judge it along with the other films released that year? Or would you say both? Seems like a strange argument to me.
Also wasn't Epic released before and this product was a 'tidy-up' or collection of stuff previously found elsewhere? Not sure, but i seem to recal something along those lines. |
Did the film include the scene with him climbing the Empire State Building?
Does the state/city of New York profit from the film proceeds in any way?
Does the critic of NYT profit directly from ticket/DVD/merchandising sales of the film?
As long as the critic doesn't profit the other points are really moot, but it could be said that even the critic profits if the city/state profits in any way as the revenue from the movie being made in New York could help prevent tax hikes for that city/state.
I don't believe any movie critic especially after the idiot who review Final Fantasy: The Spirit Within claiming not only did he not like or play the video games, but then went to say that the movie was just like the video games. He shot himself in the foot with that one.
I think the most direct point would be does the critic get anything directly from a positive review? If he does, then it would be a conflict of interest or breach of ethics or whatever. Indirect profit form a review of something is harder to prove in most cases.
I neve really cared or knew about the ENnies prior to this thread, but like after finding the webbies and watching them every year, I think I will have to start watching the ENnies to see what they are all about.
And yet another word from our sponsors
