The Hot Blog

The writer is acknowledging the error and not trying to dodge responsibility for it. Unless there's a pattern of behavior here apart from this one article, I would think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Everyone makes mistakes. You only have to go so far as the title of this post to see that.

Plagiarism is plagiarism. I don't give a shit how "respected" someone is.

I can think of at least three occasions when, while re-reading something I wrote, I've realized that I had recycled more or less verbatim turns of phrase from a review or article I had read years earlier. My intent was not conscious -- in each case, the article I had lifted from was more than a decade old, and the phrases must have lingered somewhere in the back of my head -- but I would probably have a hard time defending myself against someone dead-set on "proving" I was a plagiarist. So I can easily sympathize with someone who makes a honest mistake. On the other hand, I agree there is a real problem when actual reportage is involved. (I remember being shocked years ago when I noted that clumps of a location story I wrote for the L.A. Times had turned up, unattributed, in a cut-and-paste Goldie Hawn biography.) And as Eric points out, there is the "pattern of behavior" issue. I'm sure that, right now, quite a few people are looking very carefully at just about everything Gerald Posner has ever written. If there's more to this, we'll likely hear about it real soon.

Drew, I think you are being unnecessarily harsh. Posner is "respected" because he does not stoop to such practices. Or at least, has not until now. Fischer on the other hand has done so regularly. It would appear that Posner has made an error and has admitted to it; Fischer seems to do it so regularly that to utter his own original opinion would be the aberration. As Eric says, everyone makes mistakes.

David,

I often paraphrase or even quote famous poetry or literature as a wink to my readers. Recently, for example, I've used Hemingway's "Isn't it pretty to think so?" a few times. Lines from "Prufrock" have a way of obsequiously making their way into in my prose. Yeats and cummings are frequent guests. I can't count the times I've recycled Dr. Johnson's famous lines about the dog standing on his hind legs.

I only got caught once. A reader accused me of stealing "never, never, never, never, never" from Shakespeare. Actually, I improved upon it.

Roger

However egregious you think this plagiarism is, it was certainly not "inadvertent". The editor should have looked up that word as well.

Plagiarism= bad.

Taking studio paid trips and then reviewing the movie= not as bad.

Thank God some lines are being drawn by the "professionals."

Fischer was already mocked and shunned.

I would love for you to play that out in more detail, Don. I'm not quite sure what shot you are taking.

For me, a lot of this comes down to, as Scott Rosenberg once wrote in Things To Do In Denver While You're Dead, "Give it a name!"

I am not a fan of junkets, but I also understand that both the media outlets not in NY and LA, as well as the studios trying to market strong to local markets, need a system that allows both sides to get the job done... with some degree of honor.

For me, everything is possible and okay... so long as you give it an accurate name. That goes for the things I love and the things I hate.

That Shakespeare, Roger... HACK!

David, I think Don was taking a shot at Drew. If memory serves they've, uh, had some disagreements in the past.

(The title still misspells "plagiarism," BTW)

Well, that is an issue too.

Should there not be on-sets? Does one person have to do the on-set and that person can never review?

In an odd way, I think there is equal if not more inherent bias in outlets who send writers out of town on their dime... as those writers are then likely to oversell the importance of that money having been spent in their writing. This accounts for a lot of the Cannes and Sundance overhype.

Personally, I am more concerned, in Drew's case, with the kinds of relationships he has and potential business relationships he might have that readers don't necessarily know about.

I know this is a sensitive issue with Drew and I am not trying to poke at him. Just saying, I have always felt that as someone actively pursuing a career as a screenwriter, he has no business reviewing anything ever... at least not without every review starting with a Six Degrees of Drew McW chart. He disagrees. Like Scott Rosenberg and I say, give it a name.

I actually trust that Drew is trying to be above board and that he is convinced that he is unbiased. But it is arrogant for any of us to think we are not changed by these relationships... and the more we are sure that we are untouched, the more likely we are fooling ourselves.

accidental plagarism my ass.

come on, are any of these conversations intellectually honest? if you've been caught once, you've done it more than once.

fire the fucker.

the only reason we no longer have standards is because people let shit like this slide.

Is this an example?

Moriarty Visits The Editing Room Of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN 2 And Meets Jerry Bruckheimer!!

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23612

(Moriarty says) PIRATES 2 is one of the best summer entertainments I’ve seen in a while, and it manages to improve on the first film in every way.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/23694

wait, stella, are you trying to imply that someone given special access to a project while in production would be more forgiving in a review?

why... why that doesn't make a lick of sense.

I'd really hate for this to become a Drew bash.

I think the point has been made.

As far as biases go, everyone who works in this town in any facet of the entertainment industry AT ALL is likely to make friends within it.

Good friends of mine from film school are now name directors. Lifelong critics like Schickel and Maltin undoubtedly count certain filmmakers among their friends.

Conversely, living in LA also increase your chances that a celebrity might be rude to you in person at some point, and make you dislike them.

None of us is unbiased. I've worked as an actor. Should I never review movies again?

No one is without bias. But the goal of reporting and the intended goal of criticism is to give the reader a perspective of the film.

to be fair to drew, back in the aint it cool days he often would put links in the review mentioning his set visits. kind of like disclosure. in fact, i believe he did the same thing in his Pirates 2 review.

If you're disclosing, then you are at least making the effort to be honest and shouldn't be bludgeoned for it.

if you honestly portray the facts and let the reader know, you're not really doing anything wrong. still, to think you can remain unaffected while reviewing a movie after being flown across the globe to visit the set and get pampered on the studio's dime.... you're either naive or a fool.

Whoa! I click to read what you guys think of Fischer and Posner's antics and I get a bunch of people ragging on McWeeny. That's not cool. I honestly think Drew has as much integrity as any critic out there. I've read just about everything the guy has written for the last 10 years, and not once have I raised an eyebrow over a review for a movie that he also did a set visit for. The guy's a pro... and I have no problem with him also being a working screenwriter. They're two completely different careers and sets of relationships, and I've never seen Drew compromise his ethics as a critic/journo because of them. Now, having said that, I eagerly await the day when I read Drew give his buddy Rian Johnson a negative review. I don't know if that will ever happen, and maybe it's just because Drew really likes Rian's movies, which is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But everyone makes bad movies at some point in their career, right? Spielberg, Scorsese... no filmmaker is perfect. Well by that logic, Rian Johnson will one day make a movie that MOST PEOPLE will agree, is not good. And when that day comes, I can't wait to read what Drew will have to say about it, IF he says anything at all. And yes, I am someone who did not care for BRICK or BROTHERS BLOOM and never really understood some of the positive reviews the latter earned from several well-known online critics who may also be Johnson's friends of various degrees.

I didn't say "burn him at the stake." But plagiarism is plagiarism. Either it's an issue or it isn't, and as someone who seriously works at everything he writes, I say it is. Fischer was wrong. Posner is wrong.

Regarding the rest of this off-topic horseshit:

Stella's Boy...

I absolutely prefer "Pirates 2" to the first one. Was that supposed to be some horrible crime you caught me in?

Jeff...

I never met or spoke to Rian Johnson until after I saw "The Brothers Bloom." I've had three in-person conversations with him ever. Nice guy, but "my buddy"?

Dave...

If I have any professional connection to anyone on a film, past or present, I disclose it in anything written about them. Period.

And Don Lewis...

How's this for professional?

At Sundance this year, there were only two midnight movies I did not review. One was "High School," which is produced by Warren Zide, who is a partial producer on "Bat Out Of Hell," which I wrote. The other was "The Violent Kind," because you have been such a douchebag to me so frequently for no reason that I chose not to carry that bias into the film and hold it against The Butcher Brothers.

Bias is part of criticism. One day, you'll understand that. "Objective" criticism is called "writing a synopsis." Everyone is biased. The point of creating a body of work as a critic is to give an audience a solid example of that bias to use as a sounding board when reading your work. David is biased. Don Lewis is biased. anghus is the fucking king of bias.

Hallelujah. Hallelujah.

My point is, I think there's a greater danger in personal friendships than set visits and other "freebies," like travel/hotel accommodations.

If a studio is going to fly me somewhere for a junket, or even just buy my lunch and give me a swag at some junket, that hardly guarantees preferential consideration in a review. That stuff is just part of the job, as David was explaining with regards to junket press. It doesn't look great from the outside, but as a journalist, you either choose to not let it influence you, or you succumb to it and play the role of the studio's bitch.

Personal friendships are trickier. If Drew hadn't liked The Brothers Bloom, I wonder if he would have reviewed it negatively, or if he would've just held his tongue (pen) and not said anything at all due to his friendship with Rian.

I feel like if you're friends with someone prominently involved in a movie, you shouldn't be reviewing that movie. Period. Regardless of whether the review is good or bad. Because you can't win. If it's a good review, it's because the critic is tight with the filmmaker, the producer, the actor, whoever. If it's a bad review, the critic risks his friendship with the artist. It's one thing to not like your buddy's movie and tell him that privately, but it's another to not like it and then tell that opinion to as many people as you can because that's your job.

And maybe I'm being unfair, using Drew/Rian as an example because I felt like, as a loyal Hitfix/Motion-Captured reader, I was reading an awful lot about a movie that I felt was mediocre at best. So my apologies to Drew and Rian if it seems like I'm calling out an impropriety that may not even exist.

I'm just calling for more transparency with regards to those relationships, that, as David said, most people may not know about. I don't think that Drew's career as a screenwriter has ever affected his reviews though. Just look at his stance on Fox. That's a studio that Drew has repeatedly taken to task as a journalist, and they deserve every word he's written about them. But it's also a studio that Drew may hope to one day sell a script to, yet he doesn't allow one professional need to overcome his responsibility to the other. And he signs his name on his work. I think he's brave, as someone straddling that line.

It's such a tricky line to navigate these days. I don't think these things are black and white. There are many shades of gray, and bringing it back to Posner -- while what he did was, yes, technically plagiarism -- I don't think the guy should be labeled a career plagiarist. It unfairly discredits all the original reporting the guy did. People make mistakes. I sure have.

Enough with the lynch mob mentality, this 'off with his head!' thinking. Give Posner a chance to learn from his mistake and my feeling is, he will.

Last note - I have an enormous amount of respect for Drew and have always considered him something of a mentor. If you're a young critic or journalist, you could not do better than to follow his lead.

I guess I just wish we felt the same way about Johnson's films. But agree to disagree...

I repeat... why would I have held my tongue?

I had never spoken with Rian Johnson or met him until after I saw "The Brothers Bloom".

Who cares? Let them all copy each other, for all I care. At least there would be less noise and less desire to alter something just to make it different.

I've been friends with Rian since college. Not a huge fan of Brothers Bloom, though I think Rinko Kikuchi was brilliant in it.

I was never asked to review the film. Had I been, I would have said the same thing.

If anyone wants to put me up on a set or send hookers to my hotel room, I will give ANY fucking movie you ever make FIVE STARS and grin ear to ear giving it a thumbs up NO MATTER HOW BAD IT IS.

I honestly DO NOT UNDERSTAND why you guys feign things like JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY when it's THE MOVIE BUSINESS; That's like trying to be principled while reporting on hip-hop music or something.

Just take the fucking bribes and run with it. Not that I entirely believe studios are "WINING, DINING AND SCHMOOZING" some beardos from fanboy sites, but let me GUARANTEE YOU, if anyone's providing HOOKERS, I wouldn't turn that shit down in a ZILLION YEARS, I'd be banging anything they send at me and calling whatever dogshit movie in question "THE MOVIE EVENT OF 2010."

Selling out is AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWESOME. I don't know why anyone pretends otherwise.

I half wish I was a cop just so I could have criminals paying me off with blow, cash and hookers.

TAKE WHAT YOU CAN GET, everyone's an asshole anyway.

FUCK principles.

As I posted above: "I am sure that, right now, quite a few people are looking very carefully at just about everything Gerald Posner has ever written. If there's more to this, we'll likely hear about it real soon."

Well, sooner than I thought:

http://www.slate.com/id/2243991/

I'll try to be as clear as I can on this and also, put the question out there. Also, by all means, if I am wrong, I'm 1000% willing to listen to why.

It is professionally unethical to take a paid trip by a studio to a movie set and then review the movie later. If you do the junket or set visit, you should not be reviewing the movie. As a reader, I wouldn't trust the review to be fair. Honestly, as a READER, not as a fellow critic or whatever. I have personally never seen a set visit report that was accompanied later by a negative movie review. If there are some, show me and I'll believe it.

As David said, no one wants to think they're being unethical and I'd add that no one is out to make a bad movie. If you go to a set and the entire trip is paid for, you're going to see some really cool shit for free. You're going to see passionate people making a film they think is amazing. You'll feel like you're one step closer to the amazing process of filmmaking and obviously film is something we all love or we wouldn't be in this. Unless you're Armond White. As a reviewer, how can that not color your perception of the finished product?? It's frigging COOL being on-set. It's even cooler to get a free trip somewhere to be on a set.

Yes, everyone is biased. I know us young whippersnappers have to learn that. But any good critic knows to state his or her bias in their review.

If you (Drew) are saying your bias might be that you got to go to Ireland for a week, all expenses paid to cover the new David Gordon Green film and when you review it, your bias would be that you got to know the people involved and really respect them and the studio and that is coloring your review of the actual MOVIE, the thing you're supposed to review openly. If that's the case then that right there should raise a flag as to what I'm talking about.

A few months ago I did a bunch of research and asked paid professional writers (including Roger Ebert) if it was unethical to take a studio paid trip and then review the movie. The answer was unequivocally yes. I'm still working on the article and will have it up on the newly relaunched "Film Threat" in a few weeks.

Scott Weinberg has an excellent article about his set visit to a film (HILLS HAVE EYES 2 I think?) and how he felt conflicted because he wasn't crazy about the film but felt *obligated* to be more positive. James Rocchi's excellent piece about the press junket for COUPLES RETREAT alluded to the fact the junket was in Bora Bora to soften up lesser reporters to be positive on a highly crappy movie. Google Eric Snider's piece about how he was honest regarding a junket and negative review for WORLD TRADE CENTER and he was blackballed from that studios screenings forevermore. Junkets and set visits leading to positive press is an elephant in the room.

All that being said- if I'm wrong and these pros are wrong about the unethical nature of taking paid studio trips and then reviewing the movie, I am willing to listen.

Personally, and this is not to toot my own horn, once I become friends with a filmmaker, I won't review their movie. Period. I might interview them but am very upfront about our relationship in the interview. I suspect this will all become trickier as my journey as a filmmaker continues. But when I was studying journalism in college, all these points of ethics were driven home very clearly.

Yes, this business is very much based in personal connections and friendships. But again, as a reader, I think there needs to be transparency in the reviews. I also totally concur with everything "The Insneider" said about transparency and his entire post as well. Plus, if you aren't hiding something questionable, why can't you just say I did the set visit and here's my review?

All that being said- do you guys think it's a conflict of interest to take a DVD screener of a movie and then review it? Is it a conflict if a film fest flies you out and/or puts you up to cover their fest?

I don't think those are unethical because I don't feel an expectation to review the films positively. I'm generally not writing a review of the film fest or the studio the DVD came from and have never been asked to write positively, nor was it expected or implied. I've written plenty of negative screener reviews and even more negative film festival screening reviews and have never felt a repercussion. But again, if someone can explain why that's wrong, I'm all ears.

And Drew- I've really given up and apologized for being personal in the past, I hope you got that message. I really appreciate you not seeing our movie and better, not bad mouthing us after not seeing the movie as one of your colleagues did. All I'm asking/looking for is fairness in reviews for everyone in our field that I don't think is there. Plus, I'm sick of fellow bloggers and writer ranting about embargo breaking, trailer stealing and a host of "unprofessional behavior" all the while, it's my feeling there's bigger questionable activity out there.

Don: Just so I fully understand -- Your question refers to studio-paid trips to sets, not studio-paid trips to junkets. Right?

Both, really. More so towards the set visits though.

Because I can tell you right off the bat: Back when I was doing TV junkets, and the studio picked up my tab, I very often panned movies (in print and on the air) that I'd been flown out to L.A. or New York or even London to see. But the review segments ran separately from the interview segments. Like, I never ended an interview with some actress by saying, "And it's a real shame she's in this great big steaming turd...

i love this discussion.

ok. how about reviewing a bootleg? or more importantly reviewing a bootleg and not disclosing it's a bootleg.

Thoughts?

Are you obliquely referring to the Fox guy who got booted for reviewing a torrented Wolverine?

Well, aside from the fact buying or downloading bootlegs is illegal which would make it unethical, how would an illegally obtained film have any kind of attachment from a studio with it?

Back to Fischer for a moment, it occurs to me to compare "quote whores" for a second, to see if there's a double-standard just for them.

Take Pete Hammond. People like him personally, think he's good at hosting Q&As and Oscar blogging...but his "reviews," not so much. If he were hypothetically caught plagiarizing, i think a lot of people would say "what a shame." Some would pile on, yes, but a substantial amount would give him the benefit of the doubt that it was just one time, if it appeared to be.

With Fischer, it is part and parcel of a pattern of questionable and unlikable behavior that's pretty well documented.

I am not familiar with Posner.

There is always a difference when the "culprit" is beloved. Some things are never forgotten (or completely forgiven). Other things go right down the memory hole. My favorite example of the latter: Two of Cary Grant's ex-wives claimed during divorce proceedings that he physically abused them. I can't say I've read or heard many (if any) references to that in any career-appreciation essays, Turner Classic Movies intros, whatever.

I have posted links here, on this blog, in response to THAT EXACT QUESTION, more than once, Don. And yet you never seem to remember that. And you always come back to the same point, so why should anyone run the links for the fourth or fifth times?

Yes, I've given bad reviews to films where I've visited the set/editing room/whatever, and I'm sure I'll do it again. For example, I was no fan of "Terminator: Salvation" no matter how many times McG personally explained his "vision" to me and no matter how much fun it was as a fan to walk around a factory floor filled with Stan Winston Terminators.

At this point, believe what you want. I've written about the process for 12 years, and it doesn't change the two hours I spend in the dark at the end of it. A set is a set. A movie is a movie. If you don't personally think you can separate the two, then you shouldn't do that kind of coverage. But stop projecting your own failure of character on others, and stop thinking you have the right to tell anyone else what they can or can't cover. I operate transparently. If I review something I visited, I send people back to the set visit in the review. If I have ever dealt with someone professionally or personally, I mention that in a review.

It's all the hand-wringing over other people's ethics in the hypothetical that I find offensive. If you think I've done something SPECIFICALLY WRONG or corrupt, tell me. Accuse me flat-out. If not, then stop worrying about how well I sleep at night or what I "might" do. It's pathetic.

That's the problem, Drew... catching you at it - even if it's never happened - is not a moral argument. It is a functional argument.

If your husband works at a strip club, day in and day out, no matter how honest and loyal he is, he is 99.9% likely to come home having had his dick sucked one day.

Not every scorpion will sting the frog... but the odds are not good... and it is nature, whether caught or not.

You DO ask us all to take your word for it. I often do the same. But you have taken the level of intimacy with films and filmmakers far past the smell test, no matter how honest you truly feel you are being in these cases.

You don't just ask us to trust you, but you ask us to trust that you can 100% trust yourself to be 100% clear about the line every time. It's asking more than is reasonable. And it is an imposition that you require your readers to consider it every time they read you. It is even more of an imposition on those who don't know. No publication with serious editorial standards would hire you to do it... which probably unfairly impugns HitFix... but they must be impugned by it, as you must.

I don't know that you are specifically guilty of anything. And I don't particularly feel compelled to look into it. "Catch me" is not only the death phrase of Gary Hart's presidential run, but more often than not an admission of guilt, whether from a powerful person or a 6-year-old who is sneaking cookies.

One of the reasons that I simply cannot take anything you write about movies 100% seriously is that you are an insider who screams that it doesn't have an effect on you at all.

Don't be too angry... the same is true of George Stephonopulous (sic). He will always be a Clinton employee first for me.

I like most of who you seem to be, Drew. But you talk about this stuff like an alcoholic talks about booze. This is why the line should not be crossed, no matter how honorable the person crossing the line is. Subjective judgments are blurry enough.

At this point, David, it's simple character assassination on your part. I have a body of work of over a decade. I write about old films, new films, home video, and pop culture at large. I operate with a ridiculous level of transparency, and if you don't read me enough to know that, it doesn't change the fact that I do it. And not because you tell me to, but because that is the way I choose to behave.

You act as if there are "rules" for the simple act of consuming and then writing about film, and I would argue there are not. I do not write for a newspaper. I do not write for you. The simple act of publishing words does not mean that we are all working the same job, or that the requirements are the same.

You can run your outlet by any standards you choose. But you continue to beat this drum that there must be something "ethically wrong" with the work I do, and I find it offensive. Deeply personally offensive.

Your strip club simile is repulsive. As is the alcoholic crack. And fuck you for making it. The reason I respond is not because I'm covering my guilty tracks, but because YOU CONTINUE TO PRINT BASELESS ACCUSATIONS OF WRONG-DOING AFTER A DECADE OF BEING UNABLE TO NAME ONE THING I HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THAT IS WRONG. Disagreeing with me does not mean you are automatically right.

I could just as easily say, "The people who spend the most time pointing the finger at others about ethical misbehavior are the ones who obviously would or do indulge given the opportunity."

I believe you judge someone by their actions. Not by some hypothetical worst case scenario. And after all this time, the fact that you continue to impugn my character goes beyond disappointing. You have done me genuine wrong over the years. You have printed things about me that weren't true and that you never bothered to retract, no matter what evidence I offered you. You have crossed lines that have nothing to do with situational ethics and that are simply cruel and petty. And yet you're the one who ALWAYS takes the first shots at me. ALWAYS.

I honestly thought you'd stopped beating this drum, but you've managed to turn this post about plagiarism into another page of personally-directed poison.

Shame on you, man.

And I've never said "nothing affects me." What I've said, for the sake of accuracy, is that everyone has biases. Shall we go back through every word you've ever written about how much you enjoy the company of this or that filmmaker? You have hundreds and hundreds of relationships from all of your time writing about films that influence how you conduct yourself in print and in private. Some of them you disclose, and many you do not.

I genuinely enjoyed Larry Gross's coverage of Sundance. Remind me again what his background is, because obviously you would never run a review by anyone who has worked in the industry or who continues to work in the industry. Ever.

Your house is made of sugar glass, David.

Here we go into Dramaland, Drew.

No matter how much I write ONLY about the principle, Drew, you always take it someplace personal... and DRAMATICALLY personal.

I'm not going to get into one of your pissing matches.

I will simply try to stay on point... which is to say that you have a long history of not understanding moral and ethical issues versus personal issues.

My beliefs about What Drew Does are not built on What Drew Does. They are built on journalistic standards that were around long before I could type and will be there long after I am dead.

Can you get this through your head? It... is... not... about... you!!!! It's never been about YOU.

"I believe you judge someone by their actions. Not by some hypothetical worst case scenario."

That's all well and good. But the argument you are making is that the should be no moral or ethical standards for anything, unless a break in standards is caught.

"You act as if there are "rules" for the simple act of consuming and then writing about film, and I would argue there are not."

That's our entire dispute, Drew... except that I would add the word "professional" to it.

I believe in pushing the rules. I believe in building, as you have noted, a history that can be referred to. But I do believe that there are rules for professionals.

And my sense - correct me if you like - is that you have always believed that you can have it both ways.

Maybe you believe that everyone should have it both ways... until proven guilty. Not I. Not for me. Not ever.

Finally, since you dragged an innocent into it... I don't have to remind you what Larry's background is because it is on every single piece he has ever written for us, including the Sundance stuff, which included his explanation about why he would not be panning any films.

Do you know what Larry thinks about movies that he has some even small relationship to? No. Why? Because though he may talk about them over dinner, they are never offered for print. The only exception was the Ruffalo movie at Sundance, which he put a big, full disclosure on in the opening graph.

None of us are pure, Drew. I have no problem with you doing set visits and reviewing. Others do. I don't think that junketing makes people corrupt by the sole nature of having travel paid for. Others do. I don't think you are a shill for a parade of friends. Others do. My issues with you are and have always been philosophical.

I have a problem with being a movie-making employee and aspiring employee of production companies and studios and reviewing movies on a regular basis without you, at the very least, keeping a page up on your site, prominently placed, listing every company and every project you have been on or up for. That would be plenty of disclosure for me.

And if Larry Gross becomes MCN's weekly critic, believe me, he will not be working for studios and production companies at the same time. I wouldn't allow it. But more importantly, he wouldn't allow it.

I was going to chime in with exactly what David said. Every time this argument comes up and we're talking about honest-to-God points of value, Drew pops in with righteous indignation about himself. Not the argument, not the points of merit, not the honest questions being asked. Nope. Histrionics and the back of your hand on your forehead like you're some martyr for the bizz. It's comical.

Last time weren't you saying you don't even want to go on allll these expense paid set visits because it's hard being away from your family? Now it's DP throws you under the bus constantly. As David said, dude, it's not about you inasmuch as it's about the work. And as a reader and person who follows blogs and sites, I don't trust your work. And I don't think it's fair to be a "critic" when you have so many horses in the race.

I think that's another issue I have with writers who think themselves a vital part of the critical or movie making scene...the ego involved. You guys really think your "this movie should be 10 minutes shorter" ideas are listened to? Do you truly believe you're on-set to gain some kind of insight? Has there ever been a set visit where the writer was like "dude, this things a trainwreck?" Hell no. It's all puff and PR canoodling.

And as you said earlier, Drew...it's about what's on the screen. But *I* don't believe what you say (and not just you, others as well) because your aspirations have always seemed the impetus behind your work. From the very first time Harry Knowles was co-opted (remember when there was buzz he'd be making films or better, become a studio chief?! Classic. Anything to keep him churning out the positive buzz) and you were on-board with it, you, all the AICN writers and many others in the blogosphere became suspect.

And again, I apologized for being personal and just throwing things out the last time we had this argument. But rather than ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I asked about ethics, you turned it into some crown of thorns. And if you did answer it by saying "I do not write for a newspaper. I do not write for you. The simple act of publishing words does not mean that we are all working the same job, or that the requirements are the same." then you're wrong, in my opinion.

You adhere to standards fed to you by the studios. You are an embargo Nazi and sit on info they tell you not to spill so you won't lose your special privileges. I guess my main question is, are you writing to inform and entertain movie fans or are you writing to get in good with the powers that be cuz frankly, I've never been able to tell.

I think a line needs to be drawn between those who's job it is to inform and build buzz and those who are into reading a film and offering critical insight. The confusing of the 2 is really alot like FOX news masquerading as real "news" when anyone paying attention knows they're in the tank.

Know what I just realized after watching LOST? I really don't give a shit about this crap any more. Do what you want, Drew, et all and good luck to you. Your readers don't seem to mind and actually seem to dig it so, go get em.

What got me going on it to begin with was resenting seeing other writers telling people what is right and wrong, professional and ethical when all along, I had issues with set visits and whatnot. The people pointing the finger were, in my estimation, equally unprofessional/unethical. I wanted to prove a point and in the end am now doing what pissed me off in the first place- judging others and their actions and trying to be a voice of like, right and wrong.

I do think the issues we're talking about should be addressed but I've said my piece and am over it. Let the FTC sort it out if there's really an issue. I got better shit to do than police the internets.

Says the man who was just at Sundance with a film and who earlier in this thread mentioned his upcoming article at Film Threat.

Ahem.

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: