Go to bed, it's late.
What? You want me to read you a little bedtime story?
...........

I don't fall in this catergory of asking for screeners..that's because I don't know what a screener is! LOL! Is it an incomplete dvd?

[Link]

Due to the high cost of producing DVDs, it's too expensive to cripple DVD screeners, so they're usually the same as the street release versions.

Screeners are how magazines, etc. can tell you that you should go out and buy "Megablockbuster II" on DVD and what to expect, often months before the street date.

Saki

[Link]

Saki

[Link]

Saki covered the rest of the reasons (thanks Saki :)

dumblonde - maybe your pleas would have been more effective if you didn't send them the exploding dildo ;)

[Link]

Understood, I hope no one took my post seriously! Just a feeble attempt at humor.

These strong-arm tactics (especially after offending party was asked to cease & desist such activity) just make us all look bad.

So, I promise, no more exploding dildos!!!
(heh heh...an exploding butt plug might be more impressive anyway, and bring them around to my way of thinking!)

[Link]

It sounds like whether the DVD was purchased or not should be part of the review, IMHO.

[Link]

There are a lot of reviewers working really hard - they deserve screeners. I'm more than happy to provide them.

The problem lies in people requesting screeners on behalf of adt, not the mere fact that screeners exist.

[Link]

I have been reading this forum for a couple of months now, as well as stopped by to chat on wednesdays quite often. I have gotten to know the reviewers somewhat by the things they post and I can assure you, if they think a DVD is a piece of crap, they will come right out and tell you.

You must realize that just because 1 reviewer likes a movie, it doesn't mean that you will. You should try to find a reviewer you have favorite movies in common with, and stick with them.

On a final note, do you think that people who write movie reviews for Entertainment Weekly have to buy all the movies themselves? No, they get screener copies as well. Do you think that people who write software reviews for PC magazines buy the software themselves? No, they get review copies too. To imply that a review cannot be trusted simply because the reviewer didn't personally pay for the item being reviewed is rather insulting.

[Link]

I think I may be on to something here.

Maybe it would be cool to have a "Meet the Reviewers" page, where each reviewer would list his/her favorite movies, and have a little description of what they like/don't like?

That might help people find reviewers that are more in tune with their interests.

[Link]

First, Steph is the boss here and she rules as she see's fit. (with a bit of help from Drew, yes?) Anyway, that's how it is and if any of us don't like it we should move along to another site that fulfills our needs better. For the record, there are plenty of sites out there that will send you as many dvd's/vhs movies as you want as long as you review something favorably.

Steph has a variety of deals with e-tailers and production companies with regard to receiving and sending out "screener" copies of movies for review. Whatever the specific's of said deals are, that's her business-not ours. We can take it or leave it if we are asked to review a particular movie. She puts out a list from time to time (as time permits) and distributes it.

Last year, when I was younger and naive about such things, I had struck up a few conversations with company rep's in regards to such things. I was told a whole bunch of things regarding how free copies were distributed. Each company had it's own way of doing it and almost all of them attached strings. I declined participating because I refuse to let anyone tell me what I think. In almost every single case, my original request was for information so I could write a better review of a movie I already had. I wasn't soliciting anything except information. (and anyone reading my reviews, knows how pleasant and kind I am to crappy releases)

Recently, I have taken to thanking performers/companies that attend our chats via email. I thanked Jill Kelly, VCA, Nic, and some others for showing up and putting up with us. My signature directs people to my reviews. I almost always ask what new releases are coming out and what do they consider the best releases out so far are-my intention is to gather information (either to buy or rent) on stuff I may review. Sometimes, the reply I get is an open candy store approach "Don't worry about it, I'll send you copies..." and other times, the people actually read what I wrote and thank me for caring. It's possible that I mistype something (ask Astro about my lack of proofreading skills) and convey the wrong message too. Often enough, I'm up in the middle of the night with writers block and I send out emails/check forums/etc when I'm unable to sleep. Anyone who has weird hours knows exactly what I mean-and how sometimes context is lost during such communications.

So, aside from a few wisecrack remarks to spammers, I try to behave. Steph and I covered all this long ago. If I had anything to do with this post, she knows enough to email me about it. I have received emails from companies that were solicited by "employee's" of ADT and my only replies have been to tell them that there are only two employee's-Steph and Drew and any questions should be directed to them. I have been made aware-mostly by companies that I asked questions of (almost always a question on identity of a performer in a movie I'm reviewing)-that some reviewers, including reviewers that have left ADT, are aggressively soliciting free copies. Not for ADT, but for themselves. I stayed out of it as it's not my business to interfere.

I will be the first to admit that Dark, Astro, and I might have responded to Mischa's "what do you need" comment on the recent chat in a manner that is understandable. If anyone was offended by our behavior-speak up.

The easiest solution for ADT is simply to tell all the production companies that only Steph and Drew represent Steph and Drew-not in a forum post but via email, snail mail or whatever means they choose. Ultimately, steph approves or disproves that reviews anyway so it's not like Rob Black is going to slip by a "5" review of half his catalog anytime soon.

Pornaddict: I review a lot of movies. I get some free stuff from Steph but as a % of my collection? Tiny! (hint, ask the folks at DVD Empire how much I dropped on my last order or go to dvdtracker.com and wait the 10 minutes-if you try in the middle of the night-for my list to download)

If you think any of my reviews have been bought and paid for, feel free to email me and we'll discuss it. I have yet to hear anyone claim I was too nice to Ed Powers, Randy West, or anything directed by Smalley Paulie. In fact, I get a number of comments about how high a standard I impose on technical matters.

Let's face it, consumers are on the net because we're cheap. I owned a business too and it's a fact of life. One of this site's greatest features for luring people in is the price search/bargain finder.

I've raised comments in the past about some reviewers giving outrageously high marks to lousy stuff. This is true on several sites-not so much here. When I saw that a guy I like as a reviewer gave a POS title a great review AND I see he worked a camera on the title, it makes me lose all trust in him. The same holds true when it's obvious that the person didn't watch the movie at anything approaching regular speed (some paid guys either watch it at 3 hex or just snatch bits from another guys review and make up the rest).

So, in conclusion (I told you I've been reading Darkmage's reviews), if I was even the tiniest part of the recent problem, email me and I'll offer to leave, stop reviewing altogether, or donate the price of a top of the line title to AIM (and I don't itemize my taxes so I won't get any tax benefit from it). To anyone else who may have been part of the problem, either fess up and stop doing it, or just stop doing it. Fair?

[Link]

I didn't mean for my post to come across as reviewers doing evil things. Most do it to help ADT. All I want to say is that it doesn't help ADT.

This isn't about naming names or people fessing up. It's a problem I wanted to address as a community. Everyone here is a potential reviewer. I want studios to feel comfortable here. The first thing asked of a new studio representative should not be about screeners.

As far as Meet The Reviewers - since we don't have an official mechanism, I would be happy to create a page for any reviewer that wants one. We offer free webspace to contributing members. If anyone doesn't know html, but wants something posted I'm more than happy to oblige.

Reviewer Integrity - this is where all our reviewers excel. Reviewers, I hope you don't think your integrity is at all in question here. It's not.

I'm sorry that the tone of my post didn't come out exactly how I intended.

[Link]

Simple message, good reasons, no blame--time to move on!

Saki

[Link]

Steph and Drew have their hands full at the moment with wayyyyyyyyy too many projects but I'm told a reviewer page will be in the works soon. For the record, anyone can email me if they'd like to know my personal quirks. Some of you already have.

Time to move on-reviewers/potential reviews will behave and the production companies will stop soliciting those reviewers directly. (shaking hands)

[Link]

Who are you exactly? You keep saying that this is Steph and Drew's site, yet people are promising YOU that they're going to behave?

Did someone appoint you bearer of the torch or something?

Steph's first post in this thread asked that REVIEWERS stop asking for screeners in ADT's name. Where did she say that studios were asking reviewers to accept screeners (the definition of soliciting)?

I can't put my finger on you yet, but I can tell of all the people in this forum, I like your personality least.

Everything seems to be "Look at me! look at me! I write so many reviews! I rule! Look at me!"

I fear what will happen when people stop looking...

(And why are you always so long winded?)

Confused in Beantown,

Sacco

Edited by - vanzetti on Feb 2 2001

[Link]

Many of us communicate via email and the forum only scratches the surface, some of the time, on hot topics. Others have indicated to me what they did as I am their friend and often biggest cheerleader-so it's not a case of being "self appointed" as much as group appointed. If you feel left out of the loop, it's your own fault for being a lurker.

I have first hand experience with everything I posted and you can be assured that I don't like first time posters who act holier than thou-you're most likely either VCARules (kicked off,in a sense, and a likely solicitor of movies from what I hear), the religious guy whose review was denied and made fun of by several of us, "Angel" from the chat wednesday, or someone who is upset that my comments hit a little too close to home in regards to their actions.

As almost anyone here can testify (pun intended Mr VANZETTI), I am a far bigger promoter of other reviewers and ADT than I will ever be of my own stuff. For someone who claims to have been reading "for months", I strongly suspect you are still mad over some perceived slight you received from myself. So be it.

For the record, I'm one of the original members here, was one of the ones who prodded Steph to start the site, and have shown my loyalty to ADT/Steph/Drew far too many times to let an anonymous axe grinder get under my skin (if you had bothered me, I'd have written a 12,000 word response).

Have a pleasant day!

[Link]

I'm sure your reaction was only defensive in nature, but it did come across with a really elitist and arrogant tone, which I know you never intended.

And for the record, it couldn't possibly be VCARules, since Vanzetti's post was far too articulate to be him.

Saki

[Link]

As Saki said, it's too articulate for VCARules.

There's no profanity, so it can't be Mr. Holy.

There's no American-bashing, so it can't by "Angel".

Come on HoustonDon. Think out of the box!

[Link]

I know the site has a lot of lurkers and I know that I can, at times, come across as elitist and/or a jerk, but my instincts regarding such first postings are usually pretty good. Any arrogance on my part, here at least, is a result of seeing far too many such attacks. If someone doesn't know the motivations of another member, they might think to read a few more posts (this guy claimed to read all the postings for months-which should've dispelled half of his conclusions right there) before making such wild leaps of logic.

I know many of you (at least those who aren't lurkers) expect me to be less reactive to such people but this issue hits close to home. If I seem unusually out of character at my responses, it's because I take exception to such unfounded comments. Take care

[Link]

cue to endo...

[Link]