Letter I just had to send to Time magazine

[yendi]

Note: I've changed the names of three items, as people who haven't read time should have to have the movie spoiled yet.

Having just gotten back from a screening of Goldmember, at which studio reps asked us not to spoil any of the cameos (and rightly so, as they are much funnier if you don't know they're coming), imagine how appalled I was to get the latest issue of time, with a full list of spoilers right near the front. Now, imagine how much less fun the audience will have, knowing what's coming.

Between this and your spoiler-laden review of ZZZZZZZ earlier this summer, it's hard not to wonder if you're trying to undercut the impact of XXXX/YYYYY movies, or, perhaps more significantly, films that aren't released by Time-Warner.

Disappointed,

Adam Lipkin

Comments

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

You want a media conspiracy, just look at the coverage AOL (Time Warner) gives to movies, TV shows, and even computer games. The other news outlets reported when Time Warner stopped requiring it's employees to use AOL for corporate e-mail because of lost and delayed messages. CNN was notably quiet on the subject. You can't trust any of the media outlets anymore if there's any possiblity of a conflict of interest. Salon.com ran an in depth "review" of microsoft's dot net. The review was written by a guy who has written several books on dot net. Of course his review was positive. They also have political articles written by lobbyists masquerading as "journalism".

[yendi]

*nod* Much as it was flawed, this is a major reason I miss Brill's Content. There are simply fewer good watchdogs out there (and many of the remaining ones have the same ethical dilemmas as the groups they claim to watch).