The Hot Blog

Seems perfectly reasonable to fire that guy, and AICN's temper tantrum about it just makes it all the more hilarious. It's like one country complaining to another that a spy was caught and brought to justice. There's just no argument possible to help the spy - by his job description, he is a thief.

I'm still not sure what AICN provides except for a forum for geeks to stroke each other about what are typically lame cartoon films. It always seemed to me more of a Drudge Report-like site that you just check out to see if they link to anything cool. Because the reviewers for the most part are not very sophisticated and get off on a lot of lame stuff, and the message board posting are just unreadable...sort of like mine ha ha.

Seems pretty clear also that AICN's hissy fit was "O.k." because FOX doesn't hook them up anyway so it's not *really* biting the hand that feeds them. I doubt they'd go off on another studio that they're in bed with if that studio fired a projectionist for the same thing.

Also, I agree, the dude wasn't supposed to be reviewing trade screenings. He knew that. He got fired. I used to volunteer at Sundance and write for Film Threat. Volunteers get to see 3-4 movies before the fest opens and I reviewed one once. I gave it a bad review and was called on the mat for it. Although there was no written rule that sneak peeks for volunteers aren't reviewable, a new rule was made because of that that said they were. Had I broken that trust after that and got fired, I would have not only seen it coming, but I'd be understandable of the whole thing.

Grow up AICN.

Countdown to Drew's appearance and angry response and counter-response from Poland, 5, 4, ...

i hate hearing people losing their jobs over something that's supposed to be fun, like the movies, but i think this is just nothing more than consequence.

leak information, you risk losing your job.

there's part of me that wants to figure out why people risk their livelihood to post a review on a web site. It wasn't even an all damning review. But still, what's the inspiration for writing a test screening or press screening review when it could potentially cost you a job? does it make people feel like part of the system?

it's an interesting story where there are no winners.

I don't think studios have a problem with test screening reviews so much as they have a problem with poorly written test screening reviews. Ones that read like something a petulant third grader would write. Ones that are clearly written not to give a valid critique of the positives and negatives of the movie in question, but one that is tossed off in an hour or so, to claim the title of "First to review Movie X." Ones that are written by people who have read Hunter S. Thompson but do not have the mental capacity to understand calling someone a pigfucker in and of itself is not wit. Ones that want to be caustic but can only manage mild scabrousness.

I don't know if the AICN review in question falls under that category, but that is still immaterial. If you're gonna play with the bull, you have to expect to get the horns once in a while.

No one cares whether a negative test screening review is well written. The problem studios have is that they are testing a work-in-progress and legit journalists (behaving badly) are reading this shit and saying, "It got 3 negative and just 1 positive... it could be in trouble." No one knows who is writing this stuff or what the AICN crew chooses to print on to to print. But it becomes an early version of Rotten Tomatoes in a grossly unfair way... and to no end but ego.

A suspension without pay might have been a more appropriate punishment for the projectionist, but I can certainly sympathize with Fox. If these people walked into a Blockbuster, stuffed a DVD into their pocket and tried to walk out without paying, they'd certainly be arrested for theft, but buying a boot off some bum in the street is somehow okay. Sheesh, what a lawless society we have become.

So the problem then lays with bad journalists. :)

But yeah, this whole internet "I'm adopting a cool handle so no one knows who I am" thing is bullshit, and something I have gotten all but one of my writers to stop doing a long time ago, and that one writer is mired in a lifetime of arrested development.

If you're going to say something, say it as yourself.

Dp let me throw this at you.

Another Fox true story. A film critic was away on holiday in Vietnam, sees some dvds for sale and buys a few. TV shows and would you look at that - a new Fox film. Comes back from holiday and gives the film a rave review for his paper without realising that while he was away Fox didn't have media screenings for this particular high profile film. Fox knows he must have seen the film illegally somehow. Rings the publisher and forces them to fire critic.

Your comments please?

I think the guy who got fired was doing a public service for telling the world that the new Fantastic Four picture was an even bigger POS than the first one. Not that anyone really doubted it, as it's the same team on board.

The mindset that allows piracy to thrive isn't Drew's, it's Fox's, by insisting on using bullying tactics to get their way and by flooding the market with low-grade crap. From the sound of it Fantastic Four 2 is the kind of movie that _should_ be pirated.

Yup - scary times for filmmakers. I'm not so scared of bad reviews trickling out before a release. If Fox flips out over a bad review that probably says something about the quality of the film. But piracy is a true threat that should chill every filmmaker to the core.

As part of my anti-piracy research (I'm an infosec researcher as well as filmmaker) I troll bit-torrent sites looking for new releases to track - sure enough yesterday afternoon a high quality DVD screener was seeded - from Auburn, Maine of all places (by the same guy who released the screener of Black Snake Moan).

These are scary times for indie producers - if you troll BT sites you will see pirated versions of even small indies that are seriously impacted by these DLs (docs that did the film circuit but never got distribution). When your final income is only what you reap from online DVD sales, every pirated copy counts.

I would need more details, JBD. For instance, how illegal was the DVD? Was it released in Vietnam and not the US? Why did the publisher say they were firing the critic? Was there disclosure that the film was being reviewed from a DVD?

On the face of it, the scenerio doesn't sound reasonable. There are at least two major coincidences in what you offer - 1. The film is on DVD in Vietnam before US release, 2. a professional not realising that there were no screenings for a high profile film, which is quite rare, even now. Also, it is rather unusual for any studio to balk at a rave under any circumstances.

More details, please.

I hope you are kidding, J-Mc... especially that ANY movie "should" be pirated.

Arrogant and infantile.

To no end but ego? Poland, please. Not only are you hands way too dirty to have any sort of moral high ground, but I think the answer and reason for AICN is and was obvious: unflitered responses to films. Are there plants, is this system perfect? Of course not. But, ultimately, when a studio tries to black out critics, I think the purpose of such reviews reveal themselves. Batman and Robin was a bad movie.

There's a fundamental difference between trying to control the buzz, and controling the owning of a product.

There is no such thing as honor anymore. Back when I used to read AICN, I got so tired of this basic comment: "I had to sign a waiver saying I wouldn't review the film online, but screw that, here it is!"

I mean, what the hell?

DP, thanks for asking if before I was joking, then deciding I wasn't and calling me names. Who's arrogant and infantile?

Josh,

i agree. there's no honor anymore.

it's all part of the same problem, in my opinion. it's why i agree with DP on the whole 'this is part of the piracy problem'

people who buy bootlegs are thieves, but people who break the rules to get a review on a film site are just using 'free speech'. the line is moved based on the time of day and situation.

why can't the line be set in stone? if a studio shows you a movie and asks you not to talk about it, why don't the people oblige? why don't websites become more selective about who they take reviews from?

The opinions and answers to this can be debated endlessly, but the answer is so painfully simple:

because standards take effort and hard work, and since when has internet film sites been about either of those things?

The line is there for those who are willing to look.

With Arad no longer as a buffer, the FOX/AICN blood has gotten worse.

I actually see validity in both sides on this one. Dave is right that this guy broke the studio deal, but the studios capitulated to AICN and it's proxies when Sony bailed on fighting them over the leak of Starship Troopers designs. Once that happened, it made any legal recourse against proto-sites like Coming Attractions impossible as it became protected under free speech. So Drew's anger, though cloaked in class warfare nonsense, isn't so hypocritical.

Drew should have simply laid out the facts - AICN has been doing this for years, and now that FOX doesn't likes the coverage, they are going to come after you, the AICNer. You could make the case that it actually ties into the larger issue of the media conglomerates assault on internet privacy. Then AICN would be on the higher ground, but it would mean taking a hard position on an issue, which is anti-AICN.

Dave, if you want the real interesting AICN story, it's actually about how someone posted the finale of Lost in the talkbacks some time before air, the explosion in the talkback, the disappearance of the entire thread, the mass arbitrary bannings that followed and how no one in charge will explain WTF happened. The last thing I read, Knowles shoveled it onto Drew, then said he hadn't talked to him because Drew was on vacation. Whole lotta speculation on this one.

Important note: This guy didn't get fired. From his blog http://www.memflixbeyond.com/:

"The next morning I was gearing up to spend my day off with my 5-month old son, when my manager called. He said the people at the home office wanted to see me as soon as possible. I dropped my son off at my best friend’s house and drove up there. They sat me down with the VP (acting president), and told that I would definitely would never work another trade or press screening, and was ’suspended until further notice.’ They said 20th Century Fox called them that morning and read them the riot act, making threats.

Not being able to be around the press and trade screenings meant I wouldn’t work at that theater again. In addition, it was impressed upon me that any future with them was grim. Even if I were work for them again, it would have been at a lower profile theater and for a low wage that wouldn’t pay the bills and rent."

I don't really feel bad for this guy. This seems to be a clear case of someone abusing their position.

I think the best part of that blog snippet is he talks about dropping his five-month old son at his "best friend's house". He's five months old and he has a best friend? That's hilarious.

Oh wait, nevermind, it was the projectionist's best friend. Not nearly as funny. I feel dumb.

The guy has a 5 year old kid and has nothing better to do than illegally review comic book movies for a geek site pro bono? Sweet Jesus.

And no doubt his baby's momma looks just like this:

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0478311/KUCVNS_D020_00835.jpg.html

Noah: it's still pretty funny, just in a different way now.

The irony is that with all the Bruce Willis hoopla on AICN, they ultimately are supporting one of the studio's biggest summer films. Can you say dichotomy?

Well that brings up a perfect point, which is that it doesn't take much to make the AICN geeks happy, just a simple bone from Bruce Willis (or some assistant).

Dave - this all happened rather recently. Some more information. The DVD was indeed a bootleg screener. Pre-release copy. Publisher of said major paper, was told that in no uncertain terms that one of their paid employees would be revealed as a pirate/ thief (as part of new anti-piracy campaign possibly) and that they and other studios would pull advertising from a paper that supports piracy. No disclosure from the critic. He was away for some time and couldn't believe they didn't have a media screening for the title as it was a well recieved film. The review was a indeed rave.

So let em finish with asking you this. If you were the film critic for the NYT and you reviewed Hostel 2 as you did on here. Do you think you'd still have a job?

Crow: Goddamn you. I spit wine all over my computer screen after clicking on to your link. Consider me punk'd.

Joe, I just had the same reaction with my Newcastle when Defamer.com turned me on to this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r-8bVJUb7Q

Well, JBD, if I worked for the New York Times, it would not have been my call.

On the other hand, a NYT reporter bugged Fox for months about doing a story that they didn't feel was a story and when she finally scored a copy of the screenplay - draft unclear - she then distributed the screenplay for criticism by religious scholars. The story ran, she was not threatened or fired... and she had the story 60% wrong and 100% wrong about its big spin. So, really, who knows what the NYT would choose to do?

When the LAT wrote about the Hostel II leak, they amusingly left out detail, as though they had not bought a copy on a downtown street. Not sure that is very honest.

It seems to me that the story you tell is a failure of both the publisher and the critic. It sounds like the publisher got pushed around. And any critic dumb enough to review off a bootleg - which as I've explained, was never my purpose with Hostel 2 - and not to disclose comes close to deserving the boot for stupidity alone. Putting your publisher in harm's way for principle is one thing. Doing it by way of ignorance is quite another.

Specifically about me and Hostel 2... this is not my first round-up. Lionsgate knows me and how I operate and so do the other studios. They have put trust in me in the past and I in them. They have been major Oscar advertisers on MCN. And though they are not thrilled that I did it, we are still on good terms after a long discussion of this issue. And they certainly don't expect it to happen again. Nor do I.

If this were something that happened in the first year of The Hot Button, it would have been very, very dangerous. Studios were still trying to figure me out and roughcut.com was based in Atlanta. Of course, there again, there were editors who would have instigated a conversation with me before it ever ran. And I can't say that such layers are a bad thing. It was truly a 50/50 decision for me and I took 2 days in Seattle before I determined that I needed to write about what I saw. It was not an easy choice, mostly because I knew full well that it would make me vulnerable on several fronts. I decided that I was willing to risk it.

I have always bought a few bootlegs whenever they are offered. With piracy a major issue, I need to know as a journalist what is out there. I have never passed along bootlegs. And I have always offered the copies to the studios. Some have taken me up on it.

One story, for instance, was that Dark Water and Soul Plane were being sold in NY. As it turned out, Dark Water had the Jennifer Connelly cover art and the Asian film on the DVD. Soul Plane was real and I experienced the studio, MGM, first amused (calling it their "sneak screening campaign") and later blaming the failure of the film on the leak. Both were valid news, as far as I am concerned.

I have reviewed off a bootleg three times in my career. The first was off a VCD of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon that I saw in China. I saw the movie on screen many times after that and wrote more. That was 7 years ago.

The second was 5 years ago with Spider-Man. I was on the way outs with the studio because of having reported something accurately that they then had to publicly back away from. But still, it was stupid to do and I regret it.

The third was Hero, which was sitting on the Miramax shelf for almost a year when I got a copy real Asian release DVD. But The Weinsteins were raising bloody hell about the imposition on their turf. And I wrote about the movie because I was not sure whether the great film would EVER get released here. (See: The less great but more abused Shaolin Soccer) I would still do that if the situation occured. The was no piracy, only a region code violation.

I have reported based on details of a bootleg 5 times. Two were mentioned above. One was the early cut of Gangs of New York and I still think that was a story of importance, given the trouble on that movie. The second was Dawn of the Dead, in which I wrote about enjoying the audience reactions while watching the film. The third was Hostel II.

I'm pretty sure that's it. Maybe someone will remember another occurance.

Abuse of power? So is there some piece of paper somewhere with this guy's signature on it stating he won't disclose information on early screenings?

I mean, if we're going to treat this so IMPORTANTLY.

Guess I should never trust you with a business secret, Kris. After all, why should you or anyone else take my choice to confide in you SERIOUSLY? It's only the movie biz.

Business secret? If it's going to be taken to this level, fix it at the point of hire with a piece of paper. I'm sure distributors would comply. Anything lacking as much comes across completely petty and just plain philosophical after the fact.

And it's a hell of a leap to call it "confiding." Without antitrust, I'm sure Fox and every other studio would try to hawk - distribute - their own product.

I gotta say that TWC has had a problem with leaks for awhile, which may have been contributing to their lack of box office...they're also one of the studios who test screens movies voraciously here in NYC months in advance, most likely before Harvey gets out his own version of Final Cut and makes changes.

Dave thanks for the detailed reply and your point of view. Personally I thought the critic (a friend) was an idiot and told him so. He had a very easy out to the situation and failed to take it - after that there was only one way to go. Down. For me, I would love someone to do an accurate as possible analysis of piracy in the world at present. From asia to NYC. And not just the usual - figures down by 3% due to piracy according to studio x crapola. But some insight after some global interviewing; Vietnamese traders, the owners of Pirate Bay, the kids at school downloading, the car trunk garage sales, the pass among friend collectives and so on. I've never read more than 400 intelligent words on the subject ever.

Hey, everyone. ”Nicol D" here.

Have I mentioned yet that Drew McWeeny can go fuck himself?

For a guy who gets paid by megacorporations who make hundreds of millions of dollars a year and gets paid by them whether he's cranking out dogshit or the occasional decent script, he sure is a giant pussy of a hypocrite when it comes to his 'workers of the world unite' class warfare speech.

Think about that for a minute...this is one guy who gets paid by megacorporations crying 'class warfare' and corporations suck, because someone craved a quick fix of popularity through the movie website he works for that is bought and paid for by the same mega corporations that pay him.

So fuck you, Drew.

There are ways to handle these things, and you have proven over and over that you not only do not understand larger issues of ethics, but like much of the crew at AICN, still think you are the underdogs when have been bought and paid for by the gatekeepers themselves.

All you care about is the filthy lucre.

Nicol, such language! Do you kiss your mother with that dirty mouth?

kristopher, yes, problem could have been solved with non-disclosure form. and obviously that's the route they'll have to take.

to me, this is like the mcdonald's coffee lawsuit. woman spills hot coffee on herself, sues the company because they didn't have a sign warning her that coffee is hot. and she wins. now the signs are everywhere.

to violate a trust that someone puts in you and then be surprised they don't trust you anymore...

baffles me

hendhogan, you've never read anything about the mcdonald's coffee suit, have you?

Somehow I find it hard to believe that this guy would have been fired/suspended/whatever if his review had praised the movie as the best thing since sliced bread.

Is the real problem the fact that he wrote about it in advance, or that he wrote negatively about it in advance?

outside of the news reports, no. wasn't interested to get into the case law, if that's what you mean.

i could dig up some law book stuff, if you'd like. recall a case where a man put a ladder against his house during the winter with the bottom on a pile of frozen manure. he tried the same thing in the summer, ladder feel as unfrozen manure is not as solid as frozen manure. sued the ladder company for not have the appropriate warning on the ladder. he won.

If memory serves, the woman won her McDonald's coffee lawsuit because her lawyers proved that the chain kept its coffee heated to absurdly hot levels, because it allowed them to stretch the coffee grounds a little bit further and save the company money.

Our legal system is indeed screwed up by frivolous lawsuits, but this one lawsuit wasn't quite the perfect example of the screwiness that it was made out to be.

Eric,

"...because it allowed them to stretch the coffee grounds a little bit further and save the company money."

Can you pride a link to some evidence that proves this?

I don't doubt you read it, but it sounds like it is based more in bullshit anti-corporate ideology than anything in reality.

If they kept their coffee cooler then people would say they were saving money on heat.

I am willing to be proven wrong though; it's just that if McDonald's Big Macs were proven to cure cancer then you would still have no shortage of anti-coporate types 'proving' they manufactured cancer so they could profit from the cure.

I'm just sayin'...

You know... tell this story to anyone who is in a business where even minor trade secrets are shared... the idea that Fox or any other studio would expect the projectionist in a theater they were paying to screen a movie not to review the film on a website is not remotely shocking to anyone other than internet people who trade in information and have for years.

The McDonald's coffee thing is so completely different. No studio has ever had the reaosnable expectation that any projectionist would be reviewing their movie before release.

If your pal told you that his girlfriend told him at a moment of deep honesty that she had an embarrassing moment in her sexual past, you wouldn't post the details of the story on your website - even with assumed names - without expecting her to smack you the next time she saw you and for him to be pissed that you were responsibile for his new celibacy. It's really that simple.

Why do I, as an invited guest, have to get wanded and give up my cell phone at a screening for 10 people (all invited press veterans) then watch some security guy scan the room with goggles? Because of this attitude that people have the right to do whatever they can get away with and that the studio is in the wrong for not being Draconian enough.

Seriously... why shouldn't the same projectionist run a video camera in the booth? Why is that wrong, but reviewing right? After all, he didn't sign an agreement not to tape the film... or hey, even give the print to a film-to-video conversion company!

Absurd on the face... but to argue that he did know that he shouldn't videotape the films, but he was okay reviewing them on AICN... well, it's the same old "We know what you are, now we're just negotiating price" argument. And I know people will argue that a review from a test screening is not the same as piracy. But why not?

And if you want to argue that I reviewed Hostel II off a screener, you can make that argument about me... but not about the principle here.

I love stupid people.

spent the better part of the evening reading posts from various corners of the web where uneducated idiots scream FREE SPEECH! FREE SPEECH!

Their lack of understanding one of our core concepts makes me wonder what exactly they're teaching these days.

Free Speech? Are they fucking kidding me? Insane.

This story has gotten traction, appearing on all sorts of different websites. And the funny thing is, this Memflix guy is being heralded as a hero.

This sense of entitlement that people have nowadays is a scary thing. Do what you want, when you want, without consequence. The minute someone gets punished when they're clearly in the wrong, the idiot masses cry foul.

The internet is a frightening place sometimes.

Well, by David's logic it would be okay for him to review said videotaped screening, if he felt it was a news story.

I think the interesting argument here is the displacement of criticism as part of the summer dialogue. And whatever I object to it has everything to do with that. Does the studio system have a right to keep selling the audience the egress?

i'm an intelligent guy and i can't for the life of me figure out what you're saying, dellamorte. not a criticism, just trying to understand.

as far as david's logic goes, i think a large portion depends on what "a news story" is. a review of the film by and large, not so much. but if andre braugher got up in the middle of the screening shouted obsenities at the screen and left. something like that would be news outside a review. for example.

David's logic suits his own motives from one moment to the next, Dellamorte. You pretty much nailed that in your first statement.

My point is that the only thing being argued here is personal philosophy. No one has a leg to stand on.

Basically, if you want the room to bitch about this, Draconian isn't the wrong place to start.

I think a point that’s being overlooked in some places is the fact that the projectionist was an employee of a studio vendor – the theater it hired for the screening.

There is a code of conduct demanded of people paid by studios to participate in the creation of a movie.

Studio employees sign confidentiality agreements and are subject to search whenever entering or leaving the lots. Dub facilities and other outside vendors handling various functions on a movie are asked to undergo inspection by the MPAA to ensure site security. Any media that gets made is watermarked and vis/tc’ed and loaded with ID burn-ins to track its movement.

Maybe the theater was partially at fault in not making sure every employee was aware of the confidentiality standards expected of them. Maybe Fox was a little lax in not confirming that its security requirements would be met. (And I still think that maybe if the guy gave it a rave, he wouldn’t be filing for unemployment now.)

Nicol, I can't find a link. I was going from memory, and I guess ten years clouded it.

Here's what I did find: Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants at Wikipedia, a reprint of a Wall Street Journal article, and then the top result if you Google for "McDonald's coffee lawsuit."

McDonald's served the coffee at 180 degrees, apparently about 20 degrees higher than at other chains, claiming that their customers want coffee to remain hot over long drives. They had received previous complaints and settled several lawsuits out of court, but fought this one and lost. The jury didn't like the executives' dismissive attitude. The parties later settled before an appeals ruling was handed down.

So I got the details wrong, but I think we can agree on the larger point I made. That particular lawsuit was silly but there's plenty more out there with even less merit.

you don't get to run the projector for test screenings unless you are a trusted employee that's worked there for a while. i would be very surprised if the confidentiality requirements expected of him were unknown.

my own opinion, unless scarring was involved still pretty frivulous. but reaaallllyyyy didn't mean to start something with the whole mcdonalds thing.

i apologize to all involved.

The Google link says she suffered "third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay."

And just to bring myself back to the topic at hand-- the projectionist deserves what he got. Seriously. I'm trying to understand the other side of the argument, but I'm just coming up with nothing.

hendhogan,

Point one was that David said because the Hostel II leak was news he covered it. He suggested that it was okay (and correct me if I'm wrong, David) for him to buy and watch the movie because it was "news." This thread has too much bad analogies, so here's another: if doing cocaine was a big story, would the purchase and use of it make it newsworthy? Or is calling it newsworthy just an attempted moral shield to not feel bad about doing the wrong thing.

The second point is that Fox is obviously hiding their film from the critics. 24-48 hour turnaround times means print maybe gets it Saturday, and only on-line gets the story, but likely by mid-day once traffic is down. The studio wants to hide a film to get their opening weekend. Though I would never underestimate the intelligence of the American public, I feel like this is a bad solution. I can't blame them for wanting to control bad reviews, etc. but ultimately I side with the consumer in not wanting to get ripped off.

And my grammar shit the bed cause I'm still at work and dealing with the fourth disaster of the hour.

FOX is not hiding FFROTSS from critics. Its awareness is huge with the intended crowd - 10-17 year old males - and they don't give a rats fat ass what any critics says.

Something Dave has mentioned previously is that a new level of target movies are reaching a point of being critic-proof. It used to be that only big projects had that grace, but now, A&M can saturate a selected audience to the point where the only variable is competition, not word-of-mouth or reviews. FF is one of those films. So when AICN runs a bad review for FFROTSS, the FOX concern is that it might skim a few bucks from the older geek crowd which is padding. The core crowd, way younger the AICN demo, is locked in.

The geek site has maybe five years left. Then it's original college-age audience will be closer to forty.

The notion Fox is hiding "Rise of the Silver Surfer" from critics is one of the most blatantly false, obviously stupid comments made about the film thus far, and that's saying something. Press screenings were held earlier this week nationwide and additional screenings were held last night that combined press and the public. Get a fucking clue, Dellamorte; half the reason people like you and the worthless blabbering cunts at AICN are so fucking embarassing to anyone mildly associated with film is because half the fucking time you don't know shit from apple butter. Jesus Christ.

Let's review:
(1) The projectionist should have lost his job. Period. Any discussion to the contrary is ridiculous bullshit.
(2) The pathetic choir of whining instigated by doucebags like Drew McWeeny is largely negated by the fact that Fox is targeting families with "Rise of the Silver Surfer." Fox is smart enough to know that as indignant as smarmy fanboys get and as disgruntled and self-righteous they always come off as complaining about how this origin story isn't right or how Galactus is a cloud, et cetera, those same fucking fanboys will see the Goddamn movie anyway. If Fox were dumb enough to rely solely on Internet fanboys who let their lives slip away while they're pissing and moaning, they'd just have another "Snakes on a Plane" on their hands.
(3) Over half of these fucking fanboys have no fucking clue how things seem to operate in the film industry. At all. Thus, Internet word-of-mouth has a tendency to be significantly tained by copious amounts of FUCKING STUPIDITY.

- fin -

Eric,

Thanks for the links and elaboration.

Best

Anghus I'm curious why you're so irritated by the free speech claim in this case. I don't know if you were around back when all of this madness began but I have been. The net was the last place that wasn't controlled by any corporation - we were writing the rules as we went along. The case here, the studios have relationships with nobodies from dinky movie web sites half to try to control them and half for the free publicity but when their little toy decides not to do what they want, well, they have a lot of money and great lawyers. So you'll be happy to know that the internet, as it once was, will soon be a thing of the past -- and it will be one big shopping mall, if it isn't already.

That said, I don't agree with what the projectionist did only because he violated trust - this drama will now make everyone have to sign things in order to work on or be near movies that have to make all of their money opening weekend (we know the movie is going to suck like every other blockbuster this year - the lemmings will still come.)

Looking at the sheer volume of opening-day reviews, I can't help thinking that if Dellamorte really believes Fox was trying to hide "FF:SS" from critics, he must have been one of the few critics in North America who didn't get a pass to a screening.

BTW: My son and his homies tried to get into a midnight screening of "FF:SS" last night. They couldn't get in -- it was sold out. That may be an isolated incident, but...

i'm irritated by the free speech claim because it's a call to arms by idiots who don't understand what it means.

like you said, this is a breach of trust with the projectionist. He knew better, used an alias, and he was dumb enough to get caught.

this has nothing to do with free speech. his review is not free speech. it's a breach of trust and protocol, and he was well aware of it. especially with as many reviews as this guy wrote. he knew better. they all do. but when they get caught, they yell FREE SPEECH because they don't want to be accountable for their actions.

that's why it irritates me.

No wonder my toast tasted funny this morning. Seeing as how I'm friends with a number of print and internet critics alike, Rocket Scientist, when I hear that some are invited to 10 PM Thursday shows, and that the most recent screening another heard about was on Wednesday, then I take them at their word.

As to your points, I must confess I can't side with Memflix on his predicament.

As for your second... Ah, Snakes on a Plane, yes, blame the internet, tell yourself it's irrelevant because a bunch of people were laughing at Snakes on a Plane and New Line thought that meant gold. Never mind that people within the industry try to plant fake reviews on AICN all the time. Who does that? People who think the internet is irrelevant?

Yes, a lot of people who are fanboys have no idea what goes on in the business. But the business isn't the film. And the film is, to quote the NYT review, "an existentially and aesthetically unnecessary sequel." Will it open big this weekend? Of course, but if - as you, Rocket Scientist, say - they're targeting families, expect an opening weekend, and a drop. I doubt very much that the film will do as well as the first.

How much did this 90 minute wonder cost, RS? I mean, really cost? Please, if you're the expert, break it down, I would love to know these things.

FFROTSS cost just enough for FOX to win the goddamn weekend, turn gravy on DVD and announce a Surfer solo film instead of ponying up for a third FF. That's how much .

Geek sites are becoming irrelevant, Dellamorte. They have balkanized into the most absurd sub-niches possible. Because of the back-scratching precedent AICN/CHUD established, every spaz and his cousin wanted to be the x-pert on some form of geekology just so they could parlay it into studio contact. Batman-On-Film is the living embodiment of expert-shill site. And who does this favor? Only the studios, because it makes the information pipeline that much easier to control.

Within three-five years, we are going to see a seismic shift in online geekdom. 90% of these sites are not going to exist, and the ones that do will be sold to Variety, HR or an entertainment zine.

Dellamorte - The Dateline NBC sting operation is, seems to me, the kind of thing that answers your drug buying question. Is it the job of the media to set up potential criminals in order to "get the story?" These are borderline calls. Should NBC be exposing those men to national ridicule and hatred before they are tried or convicted of anything?

The idea that any reporter knows the facts without getting their hands dirty is wrong, though in entertainment journalism it is a bit different, since there is so little actual news and 95% of “e-news” is a publicist buffet in which the scoop is handed out the same way a trailer premiere is. (Ironically, the gossips actually do more hard reporting.)

It would be irresponsible for a journalist to, for instance, buy drugs in a schoolyard, tape the transaction, and choose to keep and enjoy the drugs while the story ran. But unless you do the deal, there is no story. "I was offered x,y, or z" is quite different factually than taking delivery.

So yes, if you have to buy the drugs to tell the story, do it. And then give the drugs and all the info to the cops.

I contacted Lionsgate before I ran the blog story simply confirming that the DVD was for sale in Seattle, two days before I decided to run the piece about the violence. I offered all the info I had and the DVD, should they want it to further any investigation. That’s how it works.

Anyone who has done an investigative piece knows that you have to work through a lot of moral ambiguity to get to a story. You are getting information from people who always have vested interests. Even if they are good people and are telling the truth, you must be suspect. Moreover, the best leads often come from the worst people. So do you simply get out of the story, leaving it untold, because the guy or gal who clears things up is a scumbag guilty of other crimes? Obviously, you never should single-source report when you know your source has an ax to grind. But when someone you don't thing much of whispers in your ear, if you don't follow up on it, you are not much of a journalist... and by follow up, I don't mean post it to your blog that minute and wonder whether it's true. I mean, you find confirmation... or you let it go.

As for H2, I didn't say it was okay to buy and watch the movie. I said it was okay to buy the DVD, in my opinion, to make sure it was the real DVD that had been previously reported on. Had I not read that report in the LAT, I would never have bought the DVD.

I have acknowledged that I felt I was crossing a line by watching the film, even though my expectation was that the exercise of doing so would free me from seeing it in a screening (if ever invited) and ever writing about it. Then I saw what I saw and things changed for me. From there, I made another series of personal professional judgment calls over 2 days of consideration.

People like to make these decisions into black and white, but they aren't. And if you want to call me wrong, you can always go to, "he's only acknowledging his hypocrisy on this to get a pass." The truth is, for me, that I have offered everything I can to say, "I know that I crossed a line here, but I decided it was journalistically important enough to do it." And if I break that line once a year, I am not happy, but I am not self-flagellating for weeks either.

I mean, AdAge ran the Michael Moore story today (not crediting me as the originating source of their story… I’m already quite used to that, thanks) with a link to a pirating website where the film can be downloaded and to other downloading options. Big magazine. Plenty of editors. What the fuck is up with that?

If I felt there was a consistent pattern of events that suggested I was now blithely crossing the line to serve my own interests, I would be very concerned and examining my behavior even harder than I have. (You all are a big part of my checks & balances.) But I don't see it. Even my harshest critics seem to come up with about 3 or 4 incidents that they question... over the last decade. Not sure how much more contrite I can be.

P.S. Fox screened the film Tuesday morning in L.A. for what seemed to be a pretty wide group. I couldn't make it, but the fact that I was invited when I have panned every Fox comic book movie I've seen suggests that they were being cautious (three days before opening), but not hiding the movie.

I kept hearing Wednesday and Thursday. From my circle. Just what I heard. Though a Tuesday would more than likely keep the weeklys from running it that week, but - and I acknowledge this - when you're dealing with tentpole effects titles, often the prints are shipping wet.

As per the Dateline angle, under this tenuous analogy, you did do the drugs. Not sample but enjoyed the whole bag and then reported on it. As such, I'd think - though I know this goes back a long, long ways - it'd sort of keep you from badmouthing the AICN kids the way you do. Cause you did exactly what you harp on them for doing. From a certain point of view.

I expect we can go back and forth on this one, though. So I'll drop it.

As per geek sites becoming irrelevant, I would love to know what facts led you to this conclusion. Also, Fox has announced a spin-off. Warners has talked up a Superman sequel. If Fantastic Four opens to 60 and - say - limps to 120, will a Silver Surfer film happen?

Back scratching? When the hell do I get my back scratched, if this is the case? Jeez, I'm losing out.

AICN was unmasked as unethical by Film Threat back in 2000. The Memflix scandal confirms that AICN is unethical.

Not only that, this brush-up made it to CNN and at least one trade paper. Given CNN's ownership it was a way for one media empire (Time Warner) to throw dirt at another (News Corp/Murdoch).

The Memphis newspaper added a kicker: Memflix published a movie magazine available at Malco theaters. The name of the magazine? Memflix.

Devin, studio legitimacy are the fingers scratching your back, and when you don't get it, you flip out because it's career threatening.

Don't believe me? Read your own words.

http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=10717

Dellamorte, fansites will sell because too many people are trying to subsidize careers off of glorified blogs. A reason I respect Dave is that he's tried very hard to keep the line between reporting and blog separate.

Also, we're on the verge on the next big internet investment. Ad rates keep jumping while TV is plummeting. This time, though, the larger coporations are buying into it instead of VC suckers with a ponzie scheme. HR or EW will probably make the first move, and then Variety will follow. Dave's offer to HR was a smart but it too ahead of the curve.

I can see EW buying CHUD, just as I could see DH or MCN going to Variety, (Bart/Poland love affair put aside). AICN is different. Harry's connected and he's got deep pockets. With them, you're buying a brand and not assimilating one.

In all honesty, if someone jumped now and roped several of the smaller sites together, you could cash out in about three to five with a nice profit.

I was told flat-out by a publicist that there would be no screening of FF2. A colleague then told me he had one on Wednesday, but that it was strictly for people who had been specifically assigned to review.

Since some of us don't get assigned to review UNTIL we know we have a screening, well...

Martin - that CHUD link is something else. Glad to read about some high and mighty Internet critic piss, bitch, and moan because he didn't get a special seat all for himself. Aww. He's a wittle pissy 'cause Fox wanted him "to sit in a theater packed with miscreants and then be expected to make a fair judgment of the movie." That entitled fuckabout needs to get some perspective - the kind of perspective AIDS, a good, firm beating, or the complete eradication of his family and loved ones copiously provides.

Did somebody just wish AIDS and mass murder upon somebody that he disagreed with?

sense of entitlement is a fabulous thing.

if i had a nickel for every time i heard a wesbite bitching about unfair access from studios...

i'd have a shitload of nickels.

That CHUD link was pretty funny.

Not that it's possible, but I would love to hear Ms. Chen's side to the argument.

I mean, it's not like Mr. CHUD conducts himself with any humility, tact or respect for others or anything.

Hard to believe she was entirely at fault.

Rocket, Nicol - what kills me about that story is Devin has been the leftie's leftie since I can remember, but when Mr. Daily Worker is actually treated like the prolateriate, he loses it.

As I have often said: I would hate to be a movie company PR rep, because then I would have to deal with assholes like me.

If any of you had read the article, you'd see I didn't want special treatment, I wanted equal treatment with the other members of the press.

one screening goes bad and you're wailing like a banshee.

shit happens. screenings go bad sometimes. balls get dropped.

why must you cry like a girl when it happens? mention the rep by name? make a fucking tragedy out it?

after drew went off on fox for being little bitches, you'd think you web guys would be a little more understanding that sometimes things happen. your inability to just roll with things makes you sound like a little bitch.

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