Entertainment desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 4

Film review embargoes of films that went on to have positive reception and/or good box office performance

When films have review embargoes placed on them which are only lifted shortly before the film's release, it is taken by many in the industry as a sign that the film won't be very good. There are some exceptions of course (notably this year's Blade Runner 2049, which had very positive reviews but an embargo was placed on even alluding to plot points, a decision which has been speculated to have backfired on the film's box-office performance). In addition, many of these films go on to either underperform or even bomb at the box office. My questions are:

1. What are examples of films that had review embargoes, that went on to be positively reviewed by critics? For example, what embargoed films went on to have a "Fresh" Rotten Tomatoes rating or a high Metacritic rating?

2. What are examples of films that had review embargoes which went on to have a good box-office performance?

And in each case, what were the reasons for having review embargoes on them? I am aware of this link (which was also brought up in a similar question I asked here years ago), but it tends to focus on negatively-received films and is incomplete when referring to positively-reviewed films and/or box-office successes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Force Awakens lifted the review embargo Wednesday at noon before opening Thursday evening. The short time was to avoid plot spoilers spreading via reviews. It got great reviews (93% at Rotten Tomatoes [1]) and became the highest grossing of all time on the domestic market (not adjusting for inflation). Maybe you know this but a review embargo is completely different from not screened for critics. With a review embargo the film is screened for critics days or weeks before the public opening but they are not allowed to publish reviews before a given date some time before the opening. Often there is also an earlier date where critics are allowed to publish social media reactions like short Twitter messages, if they don't mention the plot and don't give a grade. They are allowed to give a general impression of the film. Review embargoes are very common. I think they are nearly always used for high profile American films. They are intended to create public awareness at a time chosen by the studio, close enough to release for attention to not die out but long enough to let people find the reviews, talk to others and make plans. The media wants to be first so nearly all reviews from critics who have seen the film are published shortly after the review embargo. I think the embargo is also to be able to spread out critics screenings while giving the critics time to write a proper review without rushing to be first. With no embargo, many online critics would probably publish a review within minutes of seeing the film, or during the film if they are allowed to use smartphones or similar. There is a tendency that an early review embargo means better reviews but it's far from always the case. Sometimes, positive social media reactions from critics will cause an already announced review embargo to be moved to an earlier date. "Not screened for critics" means critics are not allowed to see the film before the opening. This is a sign that the studio expects awful reviews which is usually what happens. There may be very low profile films from small studios which don't have critics screenings, maybe because the studio would have trouble getting critics to show up and write about the film. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: Following from that, and following from my old question on films not screened for critics, what are other films that were not pre-screened for critics but had good critical and/or box-office reception? For critical reception the TV Tropes link I provided mentions Snakes on a Plane and a few others (which the article notes mostly bombed at the box office). Are there any other examples that were not raised in the TV Tropes link? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know examples. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't FIFA World Cup referees from more neutral countries?

i.e. half the 2014 Group D games are England or Italy vs. Costa Rica or Uruguay, Hispanophone referee (Chilean, Spanish or Mexican). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Are you accusing those referees of being biased? What basis do you have for that accusation? Nanonic (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias is very unlikely but they have referees from all over the world why not get someone from a more random country like Japan, Congo, Indonesia? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'more random'? What are you on about? Nanonic (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know, like Brazil, Mongolia, East Timor or Jordan. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Those would actually be pretty good referees (if competent enough). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does a Chilean referee have a bias in a Costa Rica/England match? --Jayron 32 20:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One of the teams gets to use the referee's native language while the other probably had to use his second language, if no England players know the other team's language but not vice versa (cause English's the closest thing to a football or human lingua franca) he might be asked to translate while the other team doesn't need an outside translator, the referee's culture's more similar to one team than the other, nothing major but no matter how much a referee's aware of things like this and takes effort to ensure he's fair that'd give England fans another reason to complain if they don't win a call. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hand signals do not require translation into any language. Your insistance that reality is different than it should be grows tiresome; if you wish to engage in a debate over FIFA policy, write to FIFA. We're not here to be your sounding board for everything you don't like about the world. Yes, referees from Chile, Spain, and Mexico will referee games involving Costa Rica and England. There is nothing we can fix about that, and if all you want to do is argue with us about why it is so, take a hike. We have no use for that. The question has been answered; those ARE IN FACT going to be the referees for those matches. Your approval is not required. --Jayron 32 21:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also FIFA Referees and the World Cup Selection Process, according to which, referees for the 2014 World Cup came from Uzbekistan, Japan, Bahrain, Australia, Ivory Coast, Gambia, Algeria, El Salvador, United States, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, New Zealand, Germany, Turkey, Sweden, Netherlands, Serbia, Portugal, Italy, Spain and England. Apparently, FIFA referees have to be fluent in English, [2] so that might give England a slight advantage as the whole team can understand what the ref is saying (referees often have to talk to the players so hand signals alone wouldn't work very well). Alansplodge (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the refs should all come from the USA, where hardly anyone cares about soccer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Competence is not optional. Being unbiased is desirable, but being able to referee well is the sine qua non of the job... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A biased referee is by definition incompetent; since the referee's job is to assure a fair game. --Jayron 32 13:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - even if you are biased, you can still ensure a fair game - it just needs dedication and professional detachment. An incompetent referee cannot assure a fair game because he does not know how. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if you're detached from a bias, you're unbiased, even temporarily. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are 999991 angels on the head of that pin! It's made from Tantalum, and the body-centered cubic crystal structure makes it rough enough that 5 more can stick on without even splitting their hairs! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, per IH, a biased referee is one who knows the rules, but calls them in favor of one team over the other. If the referee isn't doing that, they aren't biased, by the definition of bias. If the referee were calling the game in favor of one team over the other, they aren't calling a fair game. That's incompetance. --Jayron 32 17:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]