The Hot Blog

You know, when a studio release a DVD overseas before they release it theatrically here, I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on. As long as you bought a legitamite copy, of course.
I remember back in the laserdisc days of being able to rent Highlander:The Quickening because it had already been released in China :)
It's all about making sure the artists get paid.

Wow. You almost made this about Nikki. Envy's a soul-killer, David. Man up.

I don't know how common this is, but: My wife, a big fan of the Providence TV series, ordered what she thought was a legit boxed-set DVD collection of all episodes. Imagine her surprise when she received the package -- which was adorned with art and copy that, again, made it all appear legit -- and poppsed the first DVD into the player, only to see.... the on-screen "watermark" of the Lifetime network. That's right -- it appears every episode on each DVD was recorded off Lifetime cablecasts.

I know this sounds like rationalizing, but I don't look at this as owning a bootleg, because, what the hell, I could have made my own collection simply doing my own recording off Lifetime. In effect, we simply paid someone to do our recording for us. But still...

"Finally... and perhaps this is burying the lead a bit... but I did find Wolverine on DVD on the streets of New York yesterday. As always, I will offer the copy to Fox for it to do with as it will."

Okay, so you bought a bootleg copy, watched it for the most part, and commented on the contents. But now that you're done with it, you're going to offer it to Fox.

So if Friedman had done everything he did, but then offered the link of his bootleg to Fox after HE was done with it, would he still have his job today?

Dave, you still have not answered the question about your own behavior...so I repeat my original posting.....

Dave,

Aren't you forgetting about the early workprint of "Gangs of New York" that you and Jeff Wells looked at? And actually as I google Dave Poland & "Gangs of New York", here is your own words (dated June 13, 2007 10:48PM on the Hot Blog) on your history with leaks and bootlegs.

"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. "

To quote Dellamorte about my misgivings with Dave's review of the workprint of "Gangs of New York"...

"Well, by David's logic it would be okay for him to review said videotaped screening, if he felt it was a news story. (dated June 14, 2007 05:37 PM)"

Or in other words, Dave, what makes your review of the Gangs workprint any different than the people who downloaded and reviewed the Wolverine workprint? Weren't you both in possession of stolen property?.....

Hey, Jeff Wells at least gave us some answer to my question...

You may recall that Gangs of New York was delayed due to Harvey Weinstein's re-editings and adding a Leo narration track and changes in the music, etc. I was given a tape of an earlier version of the film -- pretty much an all-Scorsese version -- that didn't reflect any of the Harvey changes. It was striking how much more interesting it was because it didn't goose the viewer along in any way. It simply allowed the viewer to just find his/her way into the film without assists or voice-overs or goadings of any kind. It struck me as a much better film for this. It seemed fair to report about what the film was before it got the Harvey treatment -- that's all. It was an Avid copy that was slipped to me on VHS. I shared it with Poland and we both wrote about it.....

Aren't you on the same slippery ethical slope (maybe at a little higher position) than Friedman?
Or are you without sin and therefore can cast the first to 10,000 stone at all others who have sinned?

This whole thing is ugly and leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I hope RF lands on his feet, just to spite the haters. DP has been knocked down a few notches in my eyes. I enjoyed his bitchiness but this smacks of something worse.

i thought this story was dead.

it appears the biggest consumer of bootleg materials are second rate columnists.

djiggs, that's all i want. i just want Dave and the rest to say "you know what, we all fuck up, we're all whores."

i'd respect them more if they just admitted that every so often they break the rules and perhaps explain that they've learned something from it.

It's the pretension of always being right that makes these asses so fucking infuriating.

"I'M RIGHT, AND HERE'S 4000 WORDS JUSTIFYING IT"

You're all whores Dave. Entertainment journalism is akin to sucking cock. Why not just openly admit that every once in awhile people cross the line from 'typical whore' to 'unapolagetic whore'.

Star. Starfucker.

"Finally... and perhaps this is burying the lead a bit... but I did find Wolverine on DVD on the streets of New York yesterday. As always, I will offer the copy to Fox for it to do with as it will."

Wow. So YOU watched it with the right intent.

This whole affair is creepy and NOBODY looks like a hero...Stamping your feet down to get somebody fired over this is just...wrong, David.

"approbation?"

I think you mean "opprobrium."

Harry Knowles ain't exactly Mr. Clean. One of his cronies got busted for selling bootlegs (scroll to Lesson #2). All this happened over 10 years ago. You think the MPAA has a short memory?

Anghus, thanks. Also, is Dave's silence on his own behavior his real answer on journalistic ethics?

If you grow up as a Lutheran or Catholic, there is an opening statement in most services done by the congregration. It goes like this...

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not with us."

Hostel 2.

"Entertainment journalism is akin to sucking cock." What the hell is that even supposed to mean (other than that you're apparently contemptuous of women and homosexual men)?

sorry chris, let me run the PC version by you.

entertainment journalism is like performing an oral sex act on your partner.

to be honest, i think im contemptuous towards both women and homosexual men. as well as armenians, people named "cordell", and the entire starting lineup of the 1984 Los Angeles Lakers among others. So please, don't try and tell me what i'm conptetuous of. You have no idea of the depths of my contempt. congrats though on taking an off the cuff remark and trying to put an anti-gay/misogynist spin on it.

congratulations on living in your easily offended paradise where everything must be scrutinized for some kind of deeper meaning.

you can call someone a cocksucker without demeaning anyone who sucks a cock. If i call someone an asshole, are you going to accuse me of being contemptuous towards gay men and straight men with an anal preference?

Anus -- er, I mean, Anghus: I suspect you get your cock sucked about as often as IO gets to eat pussy.

When you're a bit older, and get your cock sucked a few more times, you'll realize that, when it comes to cocksucking, contrary to macho-bullshit conventional wisdom, the suckee is at the mercy of the sucker... that, indeed, the sucker has enormous power over the suckee. So you damn well better trust whoever is doing you this wonderful service. Because if the sucker suddenly decides that he/she doesn't like you...

Hey, wait, maybe you're right. Maybe entertainment writers ARE like cocksuckers.

I think you are dead wrong on this. Information is king. Journalists write based on documents provided to them in dubious manner. You don't cover a city council or legislature but if you received information in an illegal way would you write about it? No question you would. This story doesn't even rise to that level. If he streamed this video he didn't even receive stolen material. He watched it. It's like smelling stolen perfume. I think everyone who is crowing about this better watch it. The fact that there is even discussion about whether this is "ethical" show's how unethical entertainment journalism is.

Joe. i am a bit older.

And yes, you are absolutely right. It's not a perfect metaphor, but then again, mine usually aren't.

would you at least concede that most entertainment reporters are whores? cocksucking or otherwise?

Anghus: I know this will sound like a story I'm making up on the spot, but: Years ago, while interviewing Elizabeth Ashley, I made a reference to critics that, for reasons I still don't quite understand, set her off. "Critics are like hairdressers!" she said. "They live off other people!" I can't say I entirely disagree with that. But, then again, actors and filmmakers live off the people who buy tickets, right? Or as the pianist Van Cliburn once told me: "If I have talent, it's a gift from God. But if I have a career, it's a gift from the audience, because they don't have to come hear me perform."

Maybe we're all sucking each other's cocks?

So if entertainment journalism is akin to fellatio, what do you call the people who read entertainment journalism all day and even take the time to comment on the journalism they read?

Critics?

Um, anghus, you clearly meant that it is, in fact, demeaning. Are you now trying to suggest that you meant that entertainment journalists are akin to cocksuckers because they both perform valuable services?

Not just valuable, but delightful.

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: