« Hard Summer Questions, Part 1 | Main | BYOB 42809 »
April 28, 2009
Hard Summer Questions, Part 2
How do you solve a problem like The Wolfie?
We have now moved into the last few days before the X-Men Origins: Wolverine is released. Tracking is solid. The Mexican opening has been delayed, but the rest of North America seems to be good to go. The film has been seen by a lot of press now, particularly the junketeers. The illegal leak of the film is sure to be mentioned in a majority of features and reviews in the days to come. Whatever the box office number, it will be spun by different people in different ways.
Last Friday, I wrote about the anonymous story on AICN and others picking up on that story. My core notion was that the story – which claimed that, “"The workprint version IS in fact identical to the release print, sans effect and some audio work." – was an unnecessary form of piling on.
I still believe that to be the case. But at the same time, I feel compelled to acknowledge that the story – though overly negative in tone – was essentially correct.
I still object to the “gotcha” nature of this coverage and the tone of the anonymous source in particular. But the truth is the truth.
But that is where things get thick. One could argue that by confirming that story’s accuracy, I too am breaking the rules of conduct. I have pointedly asked the studio what it feels about this and, at this point, they seem to feel that we are close enough to the end, that tracking is strong enough, that they have successfully turned the focus to “easter eggs” at the end of the film, and also understand that the news is the news.
I’m still uncomfortable about it all… and I guess one could argue that framing this as a moral issue is just a way of excusing myself for possessing the knowledge about the two versions. Then again, I never quite bought the argument made that having looked at and judging the leaked version is the same as running the review that got Roger Friedman fired. I thought it was unnecessary at that point – especially the extra information about what this guy thought of the film – but not the same as what had happened on Fox News. (For the record, even though some of you seem to be enraged by my bringing it up, I did offer my illegally purchased disc of the film, and was asked to simply destroy it, which I now have.)
Anyway… there are, indeed, two “easter eggs.” Both were shot during production. (Were rumors that at least one of these "easter eggs" was shot just last week true - and it appears that they are absolutely not- and the only reason for shooting them was to differentiate from the leak, I would still argue that it was a unneeded pre-release story, though I would think that running it next week would be fair and add to the story of how to deal with a situation like this.) One involves Hugh Jackman. One does not. One was on the leaked version. One was not.
The idea of the different versions being on different prints is kind of silly. I understand the urge to shift focus, but one “easter egg” actually moves the story along while the other is a kitschy nod to a potential sequel, but not really a story point. To have the latter and not the former would actually be a shame for those who care about such things. (Amazingly, with all the focus on the “easter eggs” at the end of credits, almost the entire crew of junketeers who were bused onto the Fox lot for the screening not only left the theater before credits were over, but their vans took off immediately, effectively abandoning the one guy who did stick around for the very end. Oh those junketeers!)
Personally, I think Fox should include the now-infamous leaked version in the eventually DVD package for this film. Own the situation. And if you are a film lover, the footage of unfinished effects is kind of interesting when you see the final version. It’s the kind of stuff that studios put in DVD extras in order to illustrate the process of building effects.
Of course, seeing the illegally leaked version would temper any theatrical experience… not unlike any situation in which you see a film a second time in any format. I am embarrassed to admit that my nephew saw the film on some teen friend’s computer and claims he will not now see the film in the theater. But I will interested to see whether that holds up. I’m quite sure that he will argue with his girlfriend to Wolverine and not Ghosts of Girlfriends Past if they go to the movies this weekend.
Anyway… it is an ongoing dilemma. A journalist is often faced with doing something wrong or downright illegal in order to establish the facts of a story. Obviously, this is not a license to do wrong (much less to kill) with immunity. In the case of piracy, there is an absolute need to find out what the real status of any reportedly pirated film is, whether it means downloading it illegally or buying it on a city street. But what do you do once you have confirmed just what has been pirated? This has become a blurrier issue in the era of the gossip/journalist/critic, where as a pure reporter, like a John Horn, you would report the fact of the pirated version’s existence and quality and not even considering offering an opinion on the film itself.
In the particular case of Wolverine, this has gotten even blurrier, as there was over a year of very aggressive complaining, on behalf of Gavin Hood, about Fox interfering with his vision for the film. As often happens in the genre-loving community, things were (and in some quarters, are) way overboard. So the urge to pile on to Fox and Tom Rothman added to the dynamic around the leak.
In the end, the marketing for a movie of this size still dominates. There is probably over $50 million in media buys from Fox combines with another $30m - $40m worth of TV and other media from sponsorship partners. Either Hugh Jackman rising from the water all flexed or flying through the air and cutting into a helicopter gets you to want to see this movie this weekend or not. And even if a DVD of the release version of the film was available, if you love the movies and if you are under 30, you likely still love going to the movies.
For journalists, the complexities of the environment and the challenges to long-held rules are happening every day now. I think that most journalists behave in ways that they consider their best choice. But we (and I, in particular) are not always right. And with readers empowered to speak up with their perspectives, we often get good – and sometimes uncomfortable – perspective after we have already gone to print, whether on paper or electronically.
And on we go…
Posted by dpoland at April 28, 2009 04:42 PM
Comments
Care to venture a domestic box office prediction? I'm getting a Hulk/Fantastic 4 vibe in terms of quality and audience anticipation. The core audience is ready, everyone else will need convincing and word of mouth won't help the cause.
The first week of May is a great spot but Wolverine just isn't bringing the goods. 300 million is a pipe dream, 200 million is probably the best case scenario. Put me down for $170 million.
Posted by: MDOC ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 28, 2009 06:06 PM
When I heard the talk of "ester eggs" I thought they were talking about the DVD.
So the post-credits scene I just saw won't be on all prints?
Posted by: LYT at April 28, 2009 07:09 PM
Tell me one thing: What's the thesis of this piece?
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at April 28, 2009 07:31 PM
"Tell me one thing: What's the thesis of this piece?"
Crap, it has to be ONE thing?
The thesis of the piece is as follows: in this day and age, when the internet has created a porous environment in which next to nothing about the product or the process of creating the product can be held back from the public eye, studios and journalists are struggling to adapt their standard operating procedures and kept up with the almost ravenous appetite of online users for content on demand, whether it's ready or not, and whether it's ethical or not to feed such a hunger.
I think. I dunno, it was a pretty fuzzy entry.
Posted by: Hallick at April 28, 2009 07:55 PM
Kris, can you explain why it appeared you were twittering DURING your screening of Wolverine? Please tell me you weren't.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at April 29, 2009 12:32 AM
Okay, nevermind. I re-read them and it appears you were live-twittering the X2?
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at April 29, 2009 12:34 AM
Kris: I agree.
Posted by: jeffmcm at April 29, 2009 01:08 AM
"And if you are a film lover, the footage of unfinished effects is kind of interesting when you see the final version. It’s the kind of stuff that studios put in DVD extras in order to illustrate the process of building effects."
I totally agree. On a number of big-budget effects films (Transformers, War of the Worlds, Star Trek, Titanic), I'd prefer to see an unfinished work print for comparison over a pre-packaged "Making of" clip that serves as a giant commercial for the film I just watched.
Posted by: TMJ at April 29, 2009 04:21 AM
The only extra I wanted on the Transformers DVD were CGI models of the bots that you could see transform at the touch of your remote. And it didn't have that.
Posted by: LYT at April 29, 2009 12:56 PM
Camel: No, I certainly wasn't Twittering during Wolverine. In fact, I nearly smacked some annoying chick in the back of the head who was constantly checking her BlackBerry.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley at April 29, 2009 06:29 PM
Yeah sorry about that. Such is the problem with twitter - must read more carefully in future.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at April 30, 2009 01:39 AM
Dave... Both "easter egg" endings were on the workprint...
Posted by: storymark at April 30, 2009 09:55 AM
Post a comment
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.)