This video absolutely requires a disclaimer. Focus Features, the studio behind The High Note, presents it as an unbiased discussion of the movie. In fact, it would seem to be anything but and one can't help but have the strong suspicion the panel members are being paid for their participation and undoubtedly their enthusiastically positive comments about the movie. If they are indeed being paid, then there is a deception here that requires full and prominent disclosure.
It's questionable how you might have gained an awareness that the introduction to the discussion and/or those involved had somehow not been honest. In fact, Focus Features didn't reference it as an "unbiased discussion," you did. It was suggested, "this special edition of You Know That Scene, the panel discusses the power of music in film," and that appears to be exactly what said discussion entailed. Might the bias be your own.? "We Do Not See The World As It Is, We See It As We Are." Reprimanding others for your expectations, clearly, you're related to the current president.
@@TheCurvyCritic Hi Carla. I only saw your reply now. Thank you for that. However, there is still a fundamental question that remains and that is whether the panel members were paid for their participation or remunerated in kind or in any way whatsoever. That is what really lies at the heart of the issue I'm raising. If people were paid, I want to be clear that I don't fault them personally. I'm only saying there should be full disclosure by Focus Features, that's all.
@@butchlane4609 Hello Butch. First, I don't think there is any need to discuss anything here other than the video. Insulting me by comparing me to Donald Trump is unnecessary, a needless distraction, and given that you don't know me at all, seriously mistaken. As for the "bias (being) my own", I'm not sure how criticizing conflicts-of-interest constitutes bias. Finally, as for reprimanding others, if you parse my comment, you'll see I was not attacking the panel members. I was solely criticizing Focus Features for not providing full disclosure about possible payments to those panel members. The panel members' comments may have been honest and sincere (so I'm not impugning their integrity) but clearly, Focus Features would only hire people with favorable things to say, which is part of the point I was making. Also, I am aware Focus Features didn't "reference'" the conversation as an "unbiased discussion". That is why I deliberate chose the word "presents". I don't think there's much doubt that the overall style of presentation of the discussion resembles, and likely not by accident, editorial content when, in fact, this is promotional/advertising content. To use your Trump reference in a different way (given that you've opened that door), it is precisely because many politicians and corporations misrepresent things and don't fully disclose their financial interests in their actions that many others who believe in the integrity of journalism and editorial content feel potential conflicts of interest need to be disclosed. Viewers should not be mislead. I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view and I hope you don't either. As you know, when newspapers publish ads that resemble news stories, they are usually accompanied by a banner that says "advertising content" or "advertorial". In the end, Focus Features has still not replied to my comment to say one way or the other whether the panel members were remunerated in any way. Again, if they were, it should be disclosed. That's all I'm saying. I hope this explains things better.
@@vintagebroadcastingsystem8028 I do apologize for the reference to the current president, it was unnecessary. I don't know you, and it is for that very reason, if I may, suggest your not taking the words of a stranger to heart. I recall having just heard the president speak, though his being unkind fails to justify my actions. That said, I don't know you personally so don't take it personal. What others do and/or say has more to do with what they might be experiencing.
Dakota , Tracee, and Kelvin the BEST❤
I love this segment! The High Note is a very good movie! The director, cast, and the movie is GREAT!!!!
This is so fun to watch, thank you for the new teasers ❤️
Anastasija Mandic thanks for watching!
I just hope you would release Maggie's Version of Bad girl too please
I love this movie
I'm so dam excited to watch the movie😍
This video absolutely requires a disclaimer. Focus Features, the studio behind The High Note, presents it as an unbiased discussion of the movie. In fact, it would seem to be anything but and one can't help but have the strong suspicion the panel members are being paid for their participation and undoubtedly their enthusiastically positive comments about the movie. If they are indeed being paid, then there is a deception here that requires full and prominent disclosure.
I can assure you that our opinions are our own and not tainted by the studio. Thank you for your comments and for watching just the same. 🙏🏽
It's questionable how you might have gained an awareness that the introduction to the discussion and/or those involved had somehow not been honest. In fact, Focus Features didn't reference it as an "unbiased discussion," you did. It was suggested, "this special edition of You Know That Scene, the panel discusses the power of music in film," and that appears to be exactly what said discussion entailed. Might the bias be your own.? "We Do Not See The World As It Is, We See It As We Are." Reprimanding others for your expectations, clearly, you're related to the current president.
@@TheCurvyCritic Hi Carla. I only saw your reply now. Thank you for that. However, there is still a fundamental question that remains and that is whether the panel members were paid for their participation or remunerated in kind or in any way whatsoever. That is what really lies at the heart of the issue I'm raising. If people were paid, I want to be clear that I don't fault them personally. I'm only saying there should be full disclosure by Focus Features, that's all.
@@butchlane4609 Hello Butch. First, I don't think there is any need to discuss anything here other than the video. Insulting me by comparing me to Donald Trump is unnecessary, a needless distraction, and given that you don't know me at all, seriously mistaken. As for the "bias (being) my own", I'm not sure how criticizing conflicts-of-interest constitutes bias. Finally, as for reprimanding others, if you parse my comment, you'll see I was not attacking the panel members. I was solely criticizing Focus Features for not providing full disclosure about possible payments to those panel members. The panel members' comments may have been honest and sincere (so I'm not impugning their integrity) but clearly, Focus Features would only hire people with favorable things to say, which is part of the point I was making. Also, I am aware Focus Features didn't "reference'" the conversation as an "unbiased discussion". That is why I deliberate chose the word "presents". I don't think there's much doubt that the overall style of presentation of the discussion resembles, and likely not by accident, editorial content when, in fact, this is promotional/advertising content. To use your Trump reference in a different way (given that you've opened that door), it is precisely because many politicians and corporations misrepresent things and don't fully disclose their financial interests in their actions that many others who believe in the integrity of journalism and editorial content feel potential conflicts of interest need to be disclosed. Viewers should not be mislead. I don't think that's a particularly controversial point of view and I hope you don't either. As you know, when newspapers publish ads that resemble news stories, they are usually accompanied by a banner that says "advertising content" or "advertorial". In the end, Focus Features has still not replied to my comment to say one way or the other whether the panel members were remunerated in any way. Again, if they were, it should be disclosed. That's all I'm saying. I hope this explains things better.
@@vintagebroadcastingsystem8028
I do apologize for the reference to the current president, it was unnecessary. I don't know you, and it is for that very reason, if I may, suggest your not taking the words of a stranger to heart. I recall having just heard the president speak, though his being unkind fails to justify my actions. That said, I don't know you personally so don't take it personal. What others do and/or say has more to do with what they might be experiencing.
I'm pretty disappointed with the movie. It's to much Dakota to less Tracee.
Yep
I didn't see melanie griffith in the movie