The Hot Blog

Now if it had been about Nikki Finke, on the other hand. . .

Yeah Dave, I got the same email you got from Simongl. Not sure how Parry hating Fischer excuses plagiarism.

As I posted elsewhere: I am amazed that, in this day and age, any writer would think he could get away with this sort of thing for very long. I can remember back when the Internet wasn't so pervasive -- up to the mid-'90s -- that some so-called critics felt they could swipe verbatim phrases, descriptions and plot synopses from Variety reviews (including some I wrote). But it's so easy to get caught now that... Well, let's just say that I can understand a student being dumb enough to attempt this. (Just last semester, I had a student turn in an essay largely cut-and-pated from Wikipedia.) But someone who knows (or should know) just how easy it is to be called out by anyone with access to Google? Sheesh.

Er.. that should read, "cut-and-PASTED from Wikipedia..."

I applaud Parry and Childress for trying to keep a handle on a world that has become invaded by ego inflated assholes who want nothing more than to suck up to a studio, star and/or director. But the bottom line is, no one really cares. I mean yeah, Fischer should be fired or not hired due to plagiarism but hackdom is something "movie critics" these days have been raised on for well over 30 years. But we've allowed tis type of thing to progress over the years by not checking who's saying what. There's no editor-in-chief of the internet movie sites and as such, stuff is wholly unchecked and taken at face value.

Obviously Siskel and Ebert started it by dumbing criticism down to the thumbs, but then people like Maltin, Shalit and Reed got well known through their seal of approval or hyperbole. Many young writers today equate their name or quote on a poster or trailer with success, insight and intelligence as a writer. They pursue that rather than pursuing becoming a better, more insightful writer. Everybody wants the film side to like them and as such, suck up at every turn.

I still find it an alarming conflict of interest when bloggers visit a set and then give a positive review to a film while not mentioning the set visit. Plus the mere idea of covering a movie set and pretending you have insight or that it's "news" is so ludicrous...it's a PR puff piece but hey, more power to you guys. No one fucking cares. Parry and Childress try to keep people in check when there's no one else doing it so, more power to them but at the end of the day, it's the wild west.

Copy editors are getting fired at real papers while people who barely passed high school are running all these sites, blogs and film review sites. Loudmouth opinion slathered in hyperbole has taken the place of intelligent, insightful film writing. Blah.

"The guy is a hack. But he is not taking food out of my mouth or, as best I can tell, anyone else's mouth."

well, then you should do your homework...this guy is a pud and the stories about him are legend....while i have no love for the hfpa, it's not hard to find those who will talk about how (back in the day)fischer would find out who freelancers were working for and offer the publications FREE coverage...thus ensuring a place on the junket circuit and building a resume... he's rude, obnoxious and a true contributor to the "junket whore" lore....

Two separate issues, Devin.

You surely have a better sense of it than I... how many of the junketeers and others crib this way off of studio notes when they write reviews?

And Earl... Nikki is far more dangerous than anyone on the junket circuit. Again... those guys and women are easy targets. They are exactly as they seem. Nikki works hard to appear that she is not seen as what she is. Moreover, you can't buy her with a free hotel room and per-diem. Her price is much more subtle and much more insidious.

Isn't the larger sin here that somebody decided to plagiarize a freaking film festival guide? Is there anything worse at making a movie attractive to the average filmgoer, and is there anything more akin to dragging your eyeballs back and forth over sandpaper embedded with metal shavings and rock salt than that touchy-feely, come-eat-this-oatmeal, our-movie's-self-importance-will-save-the-planet paragraph that usually accompanies a photograph of two people sitting in the front seat of a car while aimlessly staring off in the distance?

Dear god, plagiarizing THAT stuff is like counterfeiting Monopoly money made out of crayons and toilet paper.

Clint Morris of Moviehole has said that Paul has been fired.

There was an even worse case recently involving someone... Lisa... something. I can't remember the name, but it was all over Twitch since a mate of mine who writes for Twitch was one of the people that guy their work plaguerised.

That's funny, Hallick.

I'm not saying that Paul is right or didn't do something that can and probably should get him fired. Is that the bigger sin than overreaching? Yes.

Perhaps Fischer can re-align himself as a member of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

And as far as the BFCA, there is a good story to be written about the questionable portion of card-carrying members.

Excellent piece on this whole thing by Vadim Rizof on IFC.com. Great point here:

Film writers often think the wrong way about blurb-chasing -- the argument is that especially soulless, careerist and traffic-grubbing writers are perfectly happy to churn out easily snippable adjectives of praise for the most implausible garbage in return for studio junket perks and traffic. And they blame the writers for this. But you know what? Blame the readers.

Bingo.

Read the whole thing here (even though, as I and he both noted, no one cares):
http://www.ifc.com/blogs/indie-eye/2010/02/plagiarism.php

Speaking of plagiarism....frigging MEN AT WORK should have worked HARDER!

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/105260/men-at-work-vs-the-man-80s-band-charged-with-plagiarism/

"Right now, for me, there is something scarier about the raging across the web than there is about junket whoring."

You really nailed it there, because it's so phony. There's a certain group of online usual suspects who jump on their ethics high horse whenever an event like this happens, and I know from personal experience that these guys are in many ways more deeply unethical than a career quote whore. I'm thinking of one guy in particular -- a current rager -- who acquiesces to his own corporate-owned outlet telling him what he is and isn't allowed to say. Things like "We found that review you wrote to be overly negative -- could you go in and soften it up, so as to not threaten our corporate partnerships?" (That quote comes from memory, because I worked there) Before this gets too maddeningly vague, I'll cut it short and say that looking for an ethics standard-bearer in any of these idiots is sure to leave you disappointed.

Just had a quick flick through the ruling for the Men at Work case - unfortunately for them, they really just got a bit unlucky with what their flute player chose to improvise.

The original song referenced was only 4 bars long, and they used 2 - and more importantly, the 2 bars which both music experts brought in to testify classified as the "hook". That was sufficient to satisfy the "substantial" requirement for the claim, and Men at Work were quite open about referencing it so the "causal connection" requirement was never disputed.

However, the only real opening for the copyright troll to claim money was because EMI signed warranties to the royalty organisations saying they fully controlled the song. (Lesson to all budding producers: be damn careful if you have to sign a warranty/indemnity agreement).

In Men at Work's favor, the judge ruled that the warranty signing was not an intentional deception. And despite the days worth of evidence trying to claim those two bars gave the song "an inherent Australianess" the judge ruled that it was not a substantial part nor the hook of Down Under. The ruling is probably going to be considerably less than the 40-60% the copyright troll was seeking, but they'll still turn a profit on what they paid for the rights.

someone got fired for being a cheap hack?

i didn't think it was possible.

fuck him. no talent assholes who phone it in deserve to be unemployed.

hopefully the diminishing ad revenue will choke out a few more.

David,

It's not correct that I removed the thumbs. Disney removed them, as I made clear on my statement on the day they incorrectly claimed I had removed them. In that statement I said they were still welcome to them.

Roger

Did you say where they could put them?

Foamy Squirell, FTW.

genius.

I don't think it's that big of a deal to copy the official plot and include it in a review, but I'm not a writer. When I'm writing a review, I think it's a chore to rewrite the synopsis in my own words because readers only care about my opinion anyway, not another rewrite of the synopsis which they could get in a million places on the web. I think a different layout for his reviews would solve the problem. Include the synopsis, major cast & crew members from procution notes at the top of the page, and his review at the bottom. Then he can just write his review and forget about the rewriting the synopsis.

Sorry to get that wrong, Roger.

You have been a bigger man in the situation than an entire company.

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: