The Hot Blog

And that's all I have to say about priapism.

Noticed the edit. Is "strap-on" really that much more objectionable than "dildo?"

Josh, to be accurate, it's a dildo holstered in a strap-on.

What a perplexing hint. Who is supposed to figure it out? People who have seen the movie already know, and people who haven't seen it don't know what the options of possible scenes could be. People who have seen Infernal Affairs?

What are you supposed to do if your dildo has an erection lasting more than 4 hours?

Consult your contractor.

At least we now know where the movie's title came from...

"if we're going to get kinky, we don't wear clothes under the raincoat"

well Dave, I didn;t think a busy movie chap like yourself would have time to hang out in the city parks.

Jeff,

There's definitely nothing like that in IF. Based on what I've read, those scenes were all Jack's idea. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that he's getting on in years, and wants to prove he's still virile.

It's common knowledge that one always wears one's very best fishing hat to a 3-way. Jeez.

Eww

thanks for letting me know that Mr Booth. :(

Next time I go fly-fishing, to avoid trouble I won;t be wearing the pork-pie with the march Brown sewn on the brim, I'll wear my Mets hat. Geez.

Leonard Maltin's (non-spoiler) review is up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3NICiqBFNY

Love how quickly review embargoes go out the window when bloggers see a movie they like.

What is that Leonard Maltin thing from? DId someone film him saying that off the air or was that a slipup?

What is that supposed to mean, ED?

If you are going to take shots, please take them. Being sarcastic isn't really conversational.

The rules for every movie are different. And you seem to forget that it was The Miami Herald, not any bloggers, that actually did break embargo by writing about the Toronto screening.

DP: wasn't pointed directly or only at you (and this probably wasn't the right thread to make that remark)... I just thought it was funny how many reviews went up on the blogs as soon as they screened the movie in L.A... we're talking less than 24 hours.

The last time I checked Warner Bros has a day-of embargo for ALL movies, though they do make exceptions (like with Batman Begins), and often are fine with week-of, but I guess everyone just assumes that if they're allowed to see the movie early they can just post whenever they want. The thing is that those of us who get to see movies early for junkets usually respect the wishes of the studio... but bloggers seem to play by their own rules. (And again, I'm not just talking specifically or only about you...though you do seem too lead the charge more often than not.)

And just because one person breaks the embargo, that doesn't give everyone else to follow suit.

Actually, ED, in EmbargoLand, the reaction of other media to any break is the deciding issue about how upset the studio is about the break. I wish it weren't so, but it has been for as long as I have been dealing with it.

So, the deciding issue that determines the reaction of other media to any break is how upset the studio is about the initial break?

Fair enough, David.

It works like this THUng...

The studios pay attention to a fairly small range of outlets, given the proliferation on the web. Turning up on Rotten Tomatoes is not, generally, enough to get a reaction... unless the filmmakers throw it at the studio.

The bigger the movie, the more detailed the attention.

Breakage rules vary from outlet to outlet. So Anne Thompson may comment before The Reporter reviews. How does that match? And then there was the time THR reviewed "V for Vendetta" out of Butt-Numb-A-Thon, which studios didn't see as a festival, but Kirk Honeycutt did, as there were tickets/passes sold. The line blurs. Once that review was up, WB was hard pressed to stop anyone else, though they tried.

If they let me go, for instance, it may trigger the trades, but not The New York Times, which sticks to its normal system.

Studios play the "if you like it, write" game, but not always. And they often change their mind on the run. So if I go to a screening and a few others who might go early are there, they will gather intel on who likes or hates and then call to either open or close the door.

My preference would be that rules be clear and don't flex... even if that means I write later in most cases.

But yes, in the end, for the outlets who are in close contact with the studios, there is a dance on many movies based on all of these issues. Studios may be more protective of some films... less protective of others. But they have become absolute pushovers about punishing those who break their rules. So more and more, there are no rules in the bottom line reality.

The funny thing is, the small group of us who are in the middle slice of all of this are getting tired, lazy, and/or burnt out. Too much content is becoming the policing factor. And the fight over embargoes now happens intensely only about 20 times a year. But you never know when the battle will be engaged. Could be Superman Returns. Could be Little Children. Could be The Prestige.

Great assessment, David. My issue (and it always has been) is that the more it happens, whether the studio/publicist says something or not, the less there'll be advance screenings specifically for online press/critics. I already see it happening here where some independent publicists won't invite online press to movies until a week or two before the movie opens. The problem with that is those of us with busy schedules (like you and I) trying to cover these movies end up having an insane time arranging (and then rearranging) our schedules to cover stuff. The more the studios have to worry about onliners ignoring the embargoes (set in place to be fair to the daily newspapers), the less chance we get screenings of a movie before the Tues/Weds before opening. And I'm sure well aware of all that :)

The thing is that even some of us online, like print critics/journalists, have to answer to an editor and an advertising dept. who value studio relationships and we can't just post reviews willy-nilly just to keep up with the Joneses...while also having to be on top of things so that we're not thought of as being slackers by our readers.

It gets exceedingly tough to find a balance when there's this growing mentality that being first is best and that a person's opinion no longer matters if it isn't revealed until weeks after seeing a movie. I personaly don't feel it does justice to the film or filmmakers to post things so early that the people who are usually only thinking to the weekend ahead even remember it by the time the movie comes around.

I mean, early buzz is great and all... but as we saw with Snakes on a Plane... that buzz doesn't help if it comes so early that people forgot by the time the movie comes out. (In other words...will anyone seeing all of this Departed buzz remember it in two weeks? How many people mark their calendars to see a movie this far in advance...well, besides us.)

correction (damn lack of an editing function)... last line of 1st paragraph should read:

And I'm sure YOU'RE well aware of all that :)

This is great, I feel like such an insidah. And, I'm a great copy editor, no?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: