I would normally say that it's an indicator of a bad movie that it's not screening until mere hours before its release, but the early buzz I've heard (and, to be honest, my own fanboy-ish tendencies) make me think that this isn't a quality issue.

Rather, this movie has been veiled in secrecy ever since they started development back in 2003. They've purposely left the plot vague and kept the trailers somewhat disjointed in terms of plot points - I know I really don't have any idea how all the disparate elements tie together in the story. The movie actually wasn't officially confirmed as finished, I hear, until a few weeks ago - according to Matt Groening, the first real trailer that was released was comprised of roughly 75% material that isn't in the final movie. The final, most recent trailer, is apparently more representative of the finished movie.

I choose, based on an utter lack of evidence, to take this eleventh-hour wrangling and secrecy as a sign that they were trying to perfect the script and get the movie just right. With a roughly four-year development time already, I think that's kind of wonderful.

So far, the trailers and preview clips have made me giggle, so here's hoping.

This movie should have been made 10 years ago when there was still some creativity and intelligence behind the Simpsons.

What changes could they possibly make to the final product at this late stage? I always assumed that, with the opening date just a few weeks away, the final film was in the can and they were just trying to get it shipped out. Could they really make any changes to it now?

I concur. The problems I have encountered with screenings feel much more like a mater of corporate policy and much less like a given publicist failing to understand the cold hard realities of 21st-century media.

Studios want to maximize their profits, which means controlling as much of the promotion and publicity as they can. The internet simply doesn't fit into that scheme. It defies that control by its very nature. In their view ciritcs serve as alternate means of promotion. That is our only function in their world. And as long as we adhere to that function - whether because we genuinely love the movie they're pushing or because we've been bought, sold, and paid for - they'll let us play in their sandbox. It's when we start behaving in ways detrimental to the bottom line - like evincing the opinion that their magnificant new blockbuster is actually a piece of shit - that they get cranky.

The mainstream media, paradoxically, has both more and less clout when it comes to demanding earlier screenings. More clout because of the organizations backing them up, which can deny a studio promotional opportunities if they wish. Less clout because studios can influence them with ad revenues (and in too many cases, are part of the same corporate entity anyway).

Online critics worry them because we're divorced of that structure. We can do and say as we please because we're not beholden to revenue streams or pressure from higher-ups. On the other hand, we also lack the clout of belonging to a larger structure. So they can use things like press screenings to push us around, or at least try to limit the impact of what we say. They have a point when it comes to less professional outlets, and "amateurs" who catch an early screening. But as M-A said, it serves no purpose to lump us all in together. They need first to understand that they can't control the internet the way they clearly want to; that there will always be voices which they can't silence or buy off, and that word of mouth will spread fastaer than they can bottle up. Secondly, they need to make the distinction between those of us who adhere to professional behavior (and by professional, I refer to conduct and approach to the task rather than drawing a paycheck), and those who don't. As things stand, they lack sufficient interest in doing either. They'd rather just lump us all together, issue asinie fiats about when the movies are screened and be done with it.

Ironically, that doesn't bother me much. Even if they cut off press screenings entirely, they're only delaying our reviews by a few hours at the most, and while that has an impact on readership, it certainly can't stop us from moving forward. Screenings are courtesy, and they're much appreciate, but most of us out here don't require them to do our jobs. The sooner they figure that out, the sooner they can formulate a more reasonable and professional policy towards access to their films.

I agree it's crazy that the press screenings are so close to the actual opening - it doesn't make logical sense unless the film isn't very good. I also think it encourages you to scribble a review down, rather than ponder over it. That's never helpful with regard to quality.

But what I think is even odder is that public screenings start at 10am on Wednesday 25th here in the UK. So I'll see it nearly 2 full days before the US media, and that just strikes me as massively strange.