Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

To Answer Patrick Sauriol and Coming Attractions

Hey folks, Harry here. And this is where I go through Patrick Sauriol’s editorial about online ethics, paying the proper respect and Ain’t It Cool News.

Before I go into Patrick’s editorial, I want to mention one thing. I’ve been contacted by several webmasters that are all for an online code of ethics to be adapted. I’m all for discussions about an online code of ethics. Moriarty and I have been talking about this for sometime and the Professor had a talk with IGN’s Den about some sort of summit where we would all get together and hammer something out. However, since that meeting we have discussed nothing further.

Personally, I will not conduct business or serious debates about journalistic ethics on the site. These discussions would be highly boring for most of you. They would be heated and passionate as there are always issues that would be disagreed upon. But these talks shouldn’t be about ‘playing to a crowd’ and making snipes at one another. They should be calm, cool and collected. They should be face to face and organized. And it should be 100% business.

Alright, now... onto Patrick’s piece on COMING ATTRACTIONS:

Patrick states: “With such a new medium as the Internet, should there be rules that site operators follow when it comes to posting stories on their site? And if so, shouldn't the bottom line of such websites be that they deliver an accurate, unbiased and fair means of sharing news information to their audience, if they indeed pretend to be considered an online news source?”

To the first question, YES. To the second question... Aint It Cool News is not a Joe Friday, Just the facts maam, news source. I believe in editorializing and presenting my opinion on each and every story I post. Now... within that I strive to attempt to be as accurate as I can be.... labeling unconfirmed rumors as exactly that, labeling confirmed news bits as that. As for ‘bias’? It is film, and to me there is ALWAYS a bias. For example... I love Kubrick, Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron, Verhoeven, Stone, Scorsese, PTA, Tarantino and so on. I go into each of their films rooting for them. I detail my love for their work in advance of my reviews, talking about their careers, where I was introduced to them... everything. Do I have a bias when talking about Carpenter.... Yes. Is it because I have had dinner at his house? NO. It’s because the man fucking made DARK STAR, HALLOWEEN, ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK, STARMAN, THE THING, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA, THEY LIVE and so on.... Do I like VAMPIRES? Yes, wholeheartedly... and I saw the film and reviewed it far before I had ever even met the man. But... Having met John Carpenter, shared a dinner table.... Having my head cast in his next film, GHOSTS OF MARS.... Does it in one single iota make me pull a punch in saying that I didn’t like IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and that I thought that his VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED and ESCAPE FROM L.A. were pieces of pure unquestionable shit? No. So when I read GHOSTS OF MARS, did I like it to make him happy... or did I like it because I felt that the script kicked ass? I liked it because the script kicked ass. I have favorite filmmakers.... but that does not blind me to a bad bad bad film.... which... by the way is ALWAYS a matter of opinion. I mean... my god, I have had folks that Genuinely loved BATTLEFIELD EARTH write me angry letters.... and my site has contained positive reviews for GONE IN SIXTY SECONDS, which... having just returned from seeing.... I LOATHED. Meanwhile, David Poland is trying to investigate ‘my relationship with producer JERRY BRUCKHEIMER.’ Well... I adore a good many of his films, but the one I saw tonight.... even though it has an actor that I know on friendly terms.... I HATE THAT FUCKING MOVIE AND NEARLY WALKED OUT. (You’ll see my review later tonight)

Is there bias... Yeah... I want to love every film. I want to give every film a chance. The reason I run this site and work my ass off on it is because I’m trying to properly set my expectations for a film, so that when I walk in that theater... I am in the best possible state of mind to see the movie. BUT... I freely admit and quite clearly on my review page I state:

“my philosophy that film review doesn't begin and end with the opening and ending titles. There is more to it. What we do and who we are affects the review. ”

AICN has always been about opinions, beliefs and thoughts... as well as it has been about the facts and the stories. To me, I don’t like cold facts... facts is not what makes one a writer or one’s writing entertaining and fun... it is that writer’s ability to put one’s soul and cheer and love right there on the page. Something I’ll delve further into on this page.

Next Patrick raises the issue about Father Geek’s intro into his news bit, and tries to imply that we were attempting to downplay Coming Attractions. Now, I have already apologized for the unfortunate wording of Father Geek’s intro, but quite honestly he was giving the proper intro from AICN’s point of view. I had chosen not to run the scoop because I had the information from 1 source, and Patrick's press release did not necessarily imply clearly that he had been sitting on the story for in excess of a week awaiting confirmations. So, I had to assume that the story was an unconfirmed rumor based upon the source that I had also received, so I was going to wait for further information on the scoop. Father Geek was receiving tons of requests from people to post the info so they could ‘talkback’ about it, so when he posted it... He included an intro saying that we had been holding off for further information.

Now as it turns out, Patrick did have multiple sources on the casting, but we did not know that. Though Patrick had a scoop, we did not have it confirmed. Regarding STAR WARS rumors and castings... there are a TON of folks out there that love to start rumors regarding these films. Why was it necessary to put a spin on the article in the introduction? Because we did not have the information or evidence in front of us that Patrick had and it would have been irresponsible from our point of view to post it in any other manner.

Next Patrick pulls up a link to an X-MEN story that ran on the site back on March 8th, which had a tagged on image of ROGUE which apparently COMING ATTRACTIONS ran first. This was posted while I was in Las Vegas covering ShoWest. The day I received Patrick’s letter and said I’d look into it was the day my Grandmother died and I had to go to Wichita Falls for her funeral and estate dealings. Unfortunately due to the family trials and tribulations, I never got around to it as my mind was on other items at the time and not on the site. It was forgotten, and for that I am sorry.

However, if we were going to set up ‘rules’ governing pictures, I would recommend that on all exclusive photos, that the original site that posts the picture not only tags the photo with their URL, but also includes the studio copyright information as well. Not as text beneath the photo... but as text included on the photo. Just like how I handled the X-MEN photos that I ran. The original exhibitor should assume this mantle of protection themselves. When news photographers run their photos... the photo credit is ALWAYS tagged on the item itself.

The next subject is the PATRIOT promotional screening that two of his reporters went to that was of 45 minutes of that film, and how I not only linked to him, but commented upon why AICN did not attend the event.

Here’s how I presented the link to COMING ATTRACTIONS on that story:

“For a damn fine bit of coverage of the event, click over to COMING ATTRACTIONS to check it out.”

I wasn’t downplaying their story. In fact I called their two reporters’ work “a damn fine bit of coverage”. HOWEVER, I felt like I should remind people that this was ONLY 45 MINUTES OF A NEARLY 3 HOUR FILM. That I had no doubt that Emmerich and Devlin could construct a powerfully visual and haunting 45 minutes, but that one should hold off the comparisons to BRAVEHEART and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN until one saw the ENTIRE FILM. That those sorts of judgments must be held till you had seen the entire film. To me... this wasn’t a dig at Coming Attractions or their two reporters, but just common sense. I do not just provide links to stories. To me I comment on everything. I am a commentator, an editor and a columnist... albeit one with a peculiar habit of not using spellcheck... not because I can’t operate it, but because I like showing my mistakes. I feel they make me human. I don’t like a computer to do my thinking for me. If I don’t catch the spelling... then it’s my damn fault, and it will reveal me as being the boob that I am.

Patrick then states: “Does AICN know how hard two of our CA writers worked on following up these stories? Did they stop to think about what kind of effort we may have put into getting these scoops, that we cared about trying to confirm sources, maintain contacts within the business, and try and report the story in the best means possible? When I read "intros" like this for CA stories on AICN, I don't get that sense at all.”

Patrick, of course I realize how much work goes into these stories.... Because I know how much work goes into stories here. My comments were not about ‘belittling’ your reporters efforts, but to remind them that they were perhaps venturing into hyperbole. And that their comments should be tempered to reflect that. When I wrote up my coverage of THE GRINCH screening I just saw, I made sure to emphasize that the film I saw was not complete. That it could be ambushed by a bad score from James Horner if he doesn’t nail it. That Digital Domain would have to deliver perfect effects. Too often people forget context when reporting and get carried away by the event. I’M GUILTY OF THIS AS MUCH AS THE NEXT GUY! But when I catch it, I try to correct it, and... that’s why I like Talk Back on my site because those folks also reign me in when I venture into hyperbole.

The next criticism that Patrick puts forth is upon Father Geek’s changing of ‘Hey Gang’ to ‘Hey Harry’. There is no excuse for this. And I have made Father Geek quite aware of it.

Next Patrick complains about the way I review movies. Fine Patrick... Feel that way, you’re entitled. Feel free to write your reviews as you feel like, and I’ll write mine the way I feel like. Deal?

Later Patrick says, “For AICN to maintain it's not bound by journalistic ethics or boundaries, yet be seen in a wider public spotlight as an online source for movie news and reviews is a conflicting message, don't you think?”

AICN has never maintained it is not bound by journalistic ethics or boundaries. I do not go on junkets. There have been occasions where I have been flown in by a filmmaker to see their film or set. And everytime I do this, I’m pissed that the site has not achieved a financial status to afford me the ability to fly in on my own via my own expense account. HOWEVER, by this Fall my ad contracts that will sell 100% of all ad space will change this. And at that point, I will be able to fly myself or the other reporters for AICN to sets, festivals, events and screenings. The site will be able to afford this, guaranteed. As it is, I’ve been able to fly myself to several of this year’s events... ranging from Cannes to ShoWest to some of the Los Angeles screenings this year... and I am beaming with pride over this. And I can not wait for the terms of this new contract to afford me the ability to not only never HAVE to accept a ticket or a hotel room... but it will eventually enable me to hire COPY EDITORS and other reporters and full time staff. AND... the site won’t be owned, operated or controlled by any forces other than it’s own.

Alright... now to address further topics from Patrick:

1) “Nothing was mentioned of the claims that peoples e-mails have been modified from their original content, or that feedback has disappeared from his site”

As Editor and Chief of AICN, we will always retain the right to edit and modify original content for the following reasons: to clarify, to protect the anonymity of the writer, to cut down on unwanted babbling about insignificant personal details, to remove objectionable terms (words that gaybash or offend) and lastly... I remove spoilers that I feel go too far and will ruin the film. IE... Darth Vader is Luke’s Father, The Girl has a Penis, The Star Is Really Dead, etc...

As far as deleting Talk Back posts... if the posts are INSULTING, OFF-TOPIC, SLANDEROUS, LIBELOUS, SPAM, ADVERTISING or CROSS-POSTED... you have a chance to be banned or deleted. Go check out the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE II boards, you won’t see people disagreeing with me being banned or deleted. But if they start off their post with, “Harry you child fucker,” well.... guess what? Ultimately, just as a newspaper chooses which letters to run and not run... AICN will not waste it’s bandwidth with this type of material. This all falls under BASIC EDITORIAL DISCRETION.

2) “Harry went out of his way to again, make a point that AICN had received the Smits casting rumor "about 30 minutes before." Again, why do that?”

Because it was true?

3) “And again, this isn't the first time AICN and controversy have butted heads; the incorrect Oscar nominee list from last February is a prime example, or the reversal of Harry's review of 1998's Godzilla.”

And here is where Patrick decides to take a personal slam at me. I have completely addressed the Oscar List deal last February, to even David Poland’s satisfaction, I will not go into it yet again. It’s a waste of time. As for the GODZILLA reversal...

I suppose Patrick has never ever changed his mind on a film ever. His first impression must ALWAYS be absolute and unshakable.

The first time I saw GODZILLA, it was at the single best film screening event of my life. It took place in Madison Square Garden. Glen Oliver (AICN’s old head of Coaxial, now supreme reviewer and commentator on IGN’s wonderful FILMFORCE) and I were seated at the backend of the ‘youth outreach’ section upon the floor of Madison Square Garden. I was told there were over 20,000 people in attendance... and frankly I’d believe it. EVERY SINGLE TIME Godzilla appeared, the audience roared with it’s own approval. The ‘youth outreach’ group sitting in front of me would stand on their seats and Arsenio Hall pump their arms in circles while making ‘woof’ noises. There were beach balls bouncing around. Everytime GODZILLA took a step the entire building shook from what I can only describe as the largest speakers I have ever seen. When the film’s climax in MADISON SQUARE GARDEN kicked in the entire room exploded with cheers.

This was not a screening of the film at the local metroplex... this was an event, and the first review I wrote was a review of that event.

The next day I arrived in Austin, fired up and excited beyond all belief... I drug my Father from the airport to the Highland 10 theater, and sat down and finally saw the movie. I still like the effects and Jean Reno and Hank Azaria, but everything else was dull. Realizing that the mass of people in the world would never experience the film with thousands of others in Madison Square Garden, with the Taco Bell dog and Ali in attendance... with a good 400 kids standing on their seats pumping their arms... but that most would see the film in regular theaters.... with regular speakers and no beach balls at all.... I felt the experiences were different enough to comment upon them. And unless you saw the film at Madison Square Garden that night, and had that experience... I completely understand why you would think it odd. I, however, do not... and I do believe that Glen Oliver who sat right next to me... will agree 100%.

You should also know that these were 2 stories in 6145 stories I’ve posted in the modern incarnation of the website. The first one, the OSCAR story was a legitimate fuck up due to having a bad technical advisor and feeling time constraints upon the story. The second one was coverage of an event and a personal journey. In all.... I’d say that 2 in 6145 is pretty darn good... though I will strive to be better.

And with that... I have ended this rather long response. AICN is not the only website online. I do enjoy my site immensely. I love the various features and styles we report upon things with. HOWEVER, it is not the only way to do things. And thank God for that. I enjoy a great many sites online, and I never speak badly of Coming Attractions or the other websites online. I might get annoyed at comments from David Poland at times, but that does not distract from the fact he has good things to say on his site, and it’s the reason I go there.

When I talk to the press I do not say, “AICN IS THE WORLD’S GREATEST THING EVER!” I usually end up saying that I really like it, but it’s nowhere near what I want it to be. I feel Corona Coming Attractions is the best organized index of movie projects online. I feel Dark Horizons with Garth is best single page pulse on the world of pop film online. And I feel I do something very different that some people seem to really dig.

Hopefully, from this point forward instead of these front page longwinded slap matches... we can gather as an online community at a central location and meet in private and discuss the issues and come up with Charles Foster Kane’s Declaration of Principles...

The beauty of the internet is it’s diversity. We should celebrate it, and be happy for each others’ successes. As long as we bicker amongst ourselves in these bitter battles in front of the public we reveal ourselves to be small and childish. We as a community end up looking like a gaggle of jealous jackals tearing at each other for turf, when there is plenty for everyone. We need to meet in mass and collectively and privately talk and discuss. I am not opposed to that.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 7, 2000, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Excellent Editorial Harry; Be Proud; Stand Tall

    by Junior D-Girl

    You have a great site. I may be a relative newbie here but I liked what I just read. Don't let the petty jealousies override your primary mission: to do the impossible on a daily basis and do it better than any of the other guys online. Now if you could just please pretty please get rid of those stupid American Pie pop-up-ads!!! You don't need them and nobody but nobody likes them!! Hope you'll bury them soon. Anyway, I'm pooped. 'Night Harry; peaceful dreams of continued online success.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:57 a.m. CST

    Nice response...

    by GSamsaAIC

    nice response Harry....but damn, i gotta get back to this Fight Club DVD!

  • June 7, 2000, 3:04 a.m. CST

    Jesus Harry, you're going to make me cry...

    by ft99

    I agree wholeheartedly with your points, and at last we see some rebuttal to the constant "Godzilla reversal" attacks some less nice talkbackers spread through the forums. Unfortunately, while I don't understand what the beef is between you and Corona, I feel I should just weigh in with something I feel is similar to your problems, though is still completely different. I myself run a website, though completely different about Star Trek and things of that nature, a fan club at (It's not a plug, it's part of the story. :-) I posted an editorial about the recent rallies about how they wish to bring Sulu back, or more accurately, how it tanked. To make a long story short, a major Trek site got ahold of this, and through them the people in charge of the "Excelsior" Campaign. What followed was a week of public bashing from both sources, until one of us finally grew up and had enough guts to apoligize and move it from a public forum, and everybody's happy now. What does that have to do with you? Simple. Take the high road. He started this whole thing but you're continuing it. Stop responding in such a public way, because there is nothing "Cool" about this rant. I don't like coming attractions that much mainly due to the layout, and I don't like Patrick that much anymore due to him starting this, but if you want this to go away, Harry, I recommend this course of action: Next time you have something to say, say it to him privately, and request that you guys keep it between yourselves. Both sites are here for cool news, and not for this kind of public "I'm right no I'm right" kind of thing. The man that liked Battlefield Earth--Critch Starblade.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:10 a.m. CST

    the film's the thing

    by Dhigger

    I wonder Harry how you approach having to (or not having to) explain yourself periodically on the site to flamers in talkback. I suppose it's necessary for new visitors to know what the editorial policy is. But let me assure you that I wasn't very concerned with all this CA and scoop-flaming talk, and I'm sure there many like me. I read your news because I am passionate about film, not because I am looking for an encyclopedia of each movie before the it comes out. A simple qualification that a rumour is just that, a rumour is enough. The uncertainty simply adds to the FUN . Which is why I read! Knowing where you're coming from Harry (and Moriarty in equal measure) is really useful. I know what you guys like and don't like and I can use this knowledge as a yardstick for each new review. I get a more accurate impression of how much I'll enjoy a film this way that any other. Now I'm not saying that the flamers aren't entitled to their opinion. It's a different flavour of film fandom. But be assured Harry, that there are a load of readers like me that just enjoy the news, and we do know where you're coming from. When you give such extended exposure to Corona CA - who are let's face it, competing for revenue - I am persuaded to believe you when you say "the play is the thing".

  • June 7, 2000, 3:18 a.m. CST

    Sorry, no dice from me.

    by FogBoy

    That really didn't work for me. Patrick put up some fantastic points, which is obvious from the whole of his editorial. I just don't think they can be refuted... at least not without a severe change in attitude from me and the news sites around as a whole. And I don't think the rebuttals here worked at all. Maybe they worked somewhat for the individual sentences provided here, but the whole of the editorial on CA was all the more solid and still remains true in my mind. You know, not so long ago someone posted a lighthearted spoof of Harry reviews and the Talk Back medium itself here in the TBs. It was truly inspired. I'll never know why he was banned and the posts deleted. Nothing vicious. Just funny. So this is just one more reason why I think Talk Back is one more section that is handled inappropriately, time and time again. Even so, just because I don't think how things are run around here in news OR talk back doesn't mean I can't enjoy reading some of the editorializing comments of Harry. As such, I still look forward to that review of 'Gone In 60 Seconds'.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Harry: Alexandra DuPont here. To finish our conversation from ch

    by Alexandra DuPont

    ... I posted this immediately after you left, but it was addressed to you: I think this whole talk of an Internet "code of ethics" or whatnot is poppycock: (a) That's like saying there should be an accreditation association for 'zines. Ridiculous, and philisophically contradictory. (b) The government already wants to tell Internet users to eat their veggies. Are we all going to do so as well? Locking the Internet to a code goes against what the Internet stood for in the first place. And (c) If ANYone is going to lead the Internet movie-gossip "community" out of the wilderness, it will NOT be movie geeks. For pity's sake -- we can hardly remember to shower and move out of our parents' basements, much less govern ethics. Govern your hygiene and then we'll talk. End of rant. Nice rebuttal. Don't write any more on this subject.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:28 a.m. CST

    'Say it once....Say it loud...I'm Fat, and I'm Proud'..

    by philamental know what I mean, Harry. It may not be movie news, but I found that to be way more interesting than a lot of the 'scoops' that often promise, but are just stating obvious facts. So no need to play down the story on the front page, as that was great reading with a soul behind it!! I don't know 'bout anyone else but Patrick CA comes off like a very bitter little man in this whole thing. It's like he's going around like some little gremlin squeaking 'My Website's the best!, My Website's the best!!', 'I need acceptance, I need acknowledgement', 'I care more about bitchin at other websites than spending time finding movie news like I should be doing!!' I mean, he probably isn't and while it doesn't visually look great (AICN isn't Sarah Michelle Gellar's smile either btw) I have found plenty of interesting bits on his site since I found it some time back, but his continued attacks seem to getting more personal due to their persistance even after apologies and (IMHO) valid excuses from yourself to the issues he has raised. I want to say that I firmly admire your stance in this matter. You have apologised when necessary while not budging an inch on the things that are important to you and you have let him know why they are important to you. And the biggest thing for me is the way you are not getting into a personal slagging match with Patrick, which would be very easy for you I'm sure but would solve absolutely nothing. You recognise this, and hopefully your attempts will defuse the situation soon. As you say, some sort of summit may be organised at some stage to avoid this sort of event happening again, and if so, then it will have been worth it. Stand tall, Big guy!! Anyone with half a brain is behind you on this.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:34 a.m. CST

    the force is with you, young Knowles...

    by Darth Bum

    the Force.Net get the same crap all the time from JediNet. Ultimately the traditional media are going to pick certain sites as representatives of geekdom. The Force.Net seem to have been on the receiving end of this as far as Star Wars goes, and you've got it as well. I love all the sites you've discussed above, but will certainly stop visiting those that seem they're about to spit the dummy.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:52 a.m. CST

    Thanks for addressing the matter, Harry, professionally.

    by chant

    However, you know and I know we've been emailing each other and keeping this matter private for years now, and nothing was getting done from our talks. The SW2 story last week was the straw that broke the camel's back, and after a long history of this thing happening, I was going to make my views on the matter public on CA. But at least you stepped up and addressed some of the issues in my piece on CA, and for that I thank you. However, I did mention on "Director's Cut" that this went back a long time, and that one of the things that surfaced in the emails from last weekend was that this feeling is shared by a great many other webmasters. I understand that AICN gets a lot of email and scoops; so does CA and DH, and we can't post every single scoop we get. But when 20 to 30 people also feel that they have had issues in the past with their material and/or treatment on AICN, I think there's a bigger problem than writing this off as a simple feud between two websites. You also called my statement about me not liking your method of reviewing films a "personal" attack. Please go back and read what I wrote: it was my opinion, nothing more. It was not supporting my other points, I was making a personal observation, and I did not use this personal observation in my arguements. Yes, this is your site, and you can indeed run it in the way you want to, but I must run my site the way I think is right as well. And to me, it does matter how a site presents another individual's story, or another website's scoop. Words have power Harry. When you "play down" other peoples scoops, or when you don't follow up on stories that get picked up by other sites and/or the media, the truth gets distorted. I've tried telling you this does matter, it can harm not only how your readership views your site, but how the rest of the movie website community and the general public view everyone. I know we're never going to see eye-to-eye on a number of issues, but as I said in my editorial, the problems I have with AICN is the way it presents its stories, and the impact it has on the people who read it. *** There's another point you should have also mentioned Harry in your piece, and that's when you posted the private email addresses of the people on that letter mailing list. You made your article appear that these people had agreed to sign that letter when in fact they had not; they were simply names in a emailing list, and a number of them were private and confidential. I know you've removed some of these email addresses after being contacted by some of these individuals -- but if you're going to publically address my column, you should have also addressed this mis-representation in your article on Sunday and another couple of items I brought up in the DC. And for anyone who even thinks this is about me "whining" to get more visability for CA, here's me on the record stating it's not. Harry posted two emails from about a group of 60, and if you ask any one of those sites what this was all about, it wasn't about achieving greater glory for CA or any of our sites. It was about promoting a sense of community, ethics and respect for *all* movie web sites, AICN included. We all want an intelligent discussion to happen; let's hope it does.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:01 a.m. CST

    Blaw, Blaw, Blaw

    by Chase

    All I gotta say is... from the site at

  • June 7, 2000, 4:02 a.m. CST

    If you're not careful this'll become a media frenzy

    by PJB

    The time is right for a 'nice' media story about internet rivalry. Careful they don't crucify both of you. As a previous poster eloquently put it, perhaps its better to rise above it. Heck, as I've learned with my wife, sometimes you apologise even when you don't know why and it makes the following time much more enjoyable. I'm pro-AICN because of its humour and self-effacement but 'Hey gang' -> 'Hey Harry' - bang out of order and something Father Geek should write a simple quick apology for without hyperbole and justification. Just an opinion. I look forward to more reviews and less opinion.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:07 a.m. CST

    Hey, Fogboy! Hey, Harry!

    by Cereal Killer

    The reason that spoof of Harry and the Talkback community got deleted and its author banned was because the guy crossposted it a bunch of times. It was funny the first time I read it (although too long) but when I saw it again and again and again I wasn't amused and I'm sure Harry wasn't either. So it wasn't the content of his post that got that guy banned it was his arrogance. He fell so in love with his own words that he felt we should all be subjected to them over and over again. Cardinal sin here.**** Harry, I agree with those who say that this feud between you and Patrick should stay private. I'm not gonna take a side on the issue because it seems like you both have valid points but this should never have been posted on the site. The more the both of you try to prove who's the better man the worse you both end up looking. There's no way to fling mud at someone without getting some on yourself.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:09 a.m. CST


    by SkagBoy

    I'm really glad that you managed to secure a shit load of cash from advertising on your site but I have to say that this American Pie thing that keeps coming up on my screen everytime I move to the next story is really starting to piss me off. Have banners on your site by all means but I really don't think its fair of you to shove the advertising down our throats. I've been to other sites that use this type of system and in the end it pissed me off so much that I never went back. I'm not sure about the rest of you but I hope that this isn't going to become a regular occurance. P.s I may sound like a winging old man but really i'm not!!!

  • June 7, 2000, 4:21 a.m. CST

    American pie

    by PJB

    American pie: I never get popups just an occasional warning that an unsafe Active X script wants to run. Change your internet security settings to make it not popup.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:22 a.m. CST


    by kpoarse

    once all of you self-proclaimed geeks quit pretending you're journalists and realize that you're nothing more than rumor-mongers and gossip whores, all of this childish madness will simply disappear. there is no honor among thieves, and there is no code of ethics among junior high gossip queens. the rest of the world knows exactly who you are and what purpose you serve, why can't all of you backstabbing, whining little girls see it?

  • June 7, 2000, 4:45 a.m. CST

    Assuming that 'Chant' is Patrick....

    by philamental

    after reading your response, which was calm and fair, I need to rethink my previous opinion of you, which is obvious now that I unfairly picked up from the selected quotes that I have read on this site recently. (my fault, not harry's. I should not pass judgement without knowing full's just it's easier and more fun!!!! ;-) ) However it does seem that differences are there and will continue to be. It also seems that both are understanding and somewhat accepting of that. In response to Patrick's dislike of the way reviews and story are presented with an opinion and personal angle, I would say, that's what makes this site interesting and that's why the talk backs are so popular and successful. You don't like an opinion, you go into talkback and let the world know yours. It's democratic! However FG did fuck up in his presentation and (importantly) wording of the CA scoop, but look he is getting publicly (nearly said pubicly!) bashed for it. Many are saying that this should have stayed private between the two parties, but as both have said, this has been going on for a while, not just the Jimmy Smits thing. In this case I say it is probably best that it has been brought forward and debated so know get it out in the open. It honestly works, and I would hope that real progress can be made in the relationship between both site and the other movie sites. The situation has plateaued now and should be on the decline, and both sites can get back to the movie scoops now. Thank god!! Oh, and the advertising pop ups?? Very fuckin annoying, I've been on sites where it pops up once and doesn't reappear once you are navigating around the site internally. It only appears if you go to another site and return then. That I could deal with... the current 'every time I scratch my ass on AICN I see American Pie' situation is not good. Sort is out, please.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Well Said, Harry !

    by RobinP

    It's the things about AICN that are different that certainly make me come back on a daily basis...and I'm sure most other people we see here in talkback. Reviews ? We can pick up any number of reviews from any paper, magazine, or several websites, and they'll give a quick overview of the movie in question, and that's fair enough. AICN reviews are more than that...they give the good/bad/see it/save your cash element, sure, but they go further......they're personal essays. They're not the kind of reviews seen in the mainstream press, they're the kind of review one of your friends who've seen the movie before you would tell you. The same with the rumors....nobody gets it right all of the time, but Harry always identifies rumor as simply that...not yet substantiated. We, in talkback, make of it what we will, we discuss back and forth, and sometimes shoot down in flames. And that's another thing unique to AICN.....the talkbacks. yeah, other places have message boards etc....but talkback is unique.......whether it's the strange mix of people we have in here, or the fact that we all approach a common story from different's unique, and has never been bettered. So some guy wants to insult Harry and finds his post deleted, fine, I have no problem with that. This is HIS site. It's not a subscription site, we're here for free.......and Harry, via talkback, has been kind enough to give all of us a voice on the internet that can be heard all over the world....even by the film makers themselves. It's all these things, and the fact that they're presented in a lively, entertaining way that makes us ALL come back......daily.....even several times a day. Thanks, Harry !

  • June 7, 2000, 4:52 a.m. CST

    Bye Bye Miss American Pie...

    by McKenzieFrenzy

    sorry Harry, i have to add that i too am a little peeved about the shamless advertising of that crapfest "American Pie", shure, advertise if you must, shit, if i had my own site and the prospect of opening up the advertising flood gates meant that i'd be able to fly myself all over the place, i'd do it too, but sheesh, cant you advertise something good?, like Fight Club, (Which doesnt fuckin work on my dvd rom fuckit), i meen come on! American Pie, its an insult to your fine Movie Tastes. Anyway i just felt i needed to post into the talkback that bookends this whole "Code of ethics", (whatajoke) debate. Basicaly, dont change a thing to conform to these brown noseing puppets Harry, keep it reel and the geeks will love you. Just remember us when you are sitting in your penthouse suit waiting for Drew Barrimore to come and audition for your new Movie and free headjob. Ok i've said enough. PS, on the topic of shamless self promotion, everyone go to and check out the John Woo article, its my first published movie story, and i actualy got paid as well. ok see ya all later geeks.

  • June 7, 2000, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Regarding David Fincher's Next Project

    by scenestealer

    Hey Harry, I'm not sure if this information was already posted or part of Elston Gunn's Weekly Recap or Moriarty's Rumblings from the Lab but this had previously been mentioned on Coming Attractions but it appears that Fincher will not immediately do either Panic Room or The Black Daliah. But will proceed immediately with Rendezvous with Rama. Here is more info from Coming Attractions. Later, Powers "Thanks for the comprehensive & informative site. I was trawling the net looking for information on the novel Rendezvous with Rama and I stumbled across the site for Revelation Films, Morgan Freeman's production company. They have a page on the Rama film at: "According to this page Freeman is set to star and Fincher to direct as you've already reported on your RWR page. However, the writer listed is not Andrew Kevin Walker but Scott Brick, who I've never heard of and doesn't appear to have an IMDB entry. Note the page's blurb about the film speaks almost like the film has already been made! "There's also a interesting morsel of info over in their interactive media section: 'Having aquired the rights to Arthur C. Clarke's sci-fi classic, we will be creating the feature film, a T.V. program and on line products over the next three years. We will be putting together On-Line symposiums with panels of futurists and sci-fi experts to chat on-line over the next six months.' "Cool. They also have a tantalizingly named 'screening room' but there's nothing there yet." [Uncovered by the resourceful 'Shmee'.] " [Morgan] Freeman will star, internationally renowned [French] illustrator, Moebius, will design and acclaimed director, David Fincher (Seven, The Game, Fight Club), will take the helm." Cool, huh? [Detective services provided by Phil Jones.] Powers-"This looks to place Fincher on an even higher pedestal as a modern day auteur."

  • June 7, 2000, 6:42 a.m. CST

    Patrick is just a whiny beeotch.

    by splat

    Don't change anything Harry.. you're site will always be twenty times the site that Coming Attractions is. -Dan

  • June 7, 2000, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Support for the big guy

    by Hagi_the_Great

    THis is just a big word up for Harry and this site. I stumbled onto it 2 years ago and it has since become the first place I visit as I munch on my coco-pops in the morning. A huge part of the movies, for me, is hearing other peoples opinions. This is what I belive AICN is all about, peoples opinions rather than reviews. I don't always agree (JC's Vampires really bites, in a bad way) but I love hearing Harry, Moriarty, Robogeek et al thoughts. Keep rolling them in. Doing the Shuffle, Hagi the Great

  • June 7, 2000, 6:54 a.m. CST


    by TomReagan

    Sounds like this Coming Attractions jerk is just jealous that Harry's site is more popular. Well, at least Jimmy Smits agent will be happy about all the free publicity his client is getting...

  • June 7, 2000, 6:54 a.m. CST

    How can you ban people for blatany advertising when you have tha

    by Jon L. Ander

    double standards or what?

  • June 7, 2000, 6:56 a.m. CST

    sorry, that should read "blatant" rather than "blatany"

    by Jon L. Ander

  • June 7, 2000, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Jon L. Ander

    by Splinter

    Er...because it's his site mate. Simple, don't you think?

  • June 7, 2000, 7:24 a.m. CST

    "Journalistic Integrity"

    by HCEarwicker

    Harry, if you want better journalistic integrity, you're going to have to get better journalism. You've become more than you were, which was a fun rumor site with a geek-fiction edge. Now you're a viable source for news and people TRUST YOU. That means it's time to move forward: that means copy editors and fact checkers. Granted, due to the nature of the site, fact-checking won't QUITE be of the same level of a Variety or Hollywood Reporter, but it's time to get SPELLING right. It's time to make sure the articles get to the POINT QUICKER. And it's time to make sure the GRAMMAR IS RIGHT. You're getting quoted all over now, and it's time you make sure you don't get embarrassed by the quotes. There's NOTHING WRONG with the way you do things, it just needs finish, polish. All the best, buddy.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:28 a.m. CST

    AICN vs. CA

    by Ambush Bug

    A movie in the making. I am at my desk, on the edge of my seat, with a mouth full of popcorn and gum on the bottom of my shoe, wondering how this one is going to play out. God, I hope that's gum.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Ok, but what about...

    by WalkerEasterling

    David Poland's allegation that you saw 2 sony films with a studio head. And here I thought you were cross-dressing and shitting jelly beans.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Harry, we're all behind you

    by King Fausto

    but no one can see us.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:54 a.m. CST

    Go Harry

    by logangib

    I have been reading AICN, Corona and Dark Horizons for the past 2 years, and I have to say that AICN is the only one I really enjoy. Corona has way to much false and misleading information. I trust Harry. (If it was not for him, I would never have seen Pleasantville. Now I own the DVD) Currently I visit AICN about twice a day, and Corona only once a week. As for the other sites: CHUD - You site layout stinks, and your comments on certain news items really ticks me off. Dark Horizons I visit about every day. PS: AICN reviews are the ONLY reviews I read. You get a feeling for the people who review the movie, and with that you can almost immediately see if you are going to like the movie or not.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:56 a.m. CST

    And this is why I've read this site for years...

    by George McFly

    As a long-time daily reader of Harry's site, I've followed Patrick's allegations and statements with great interest. And up until several months ago, I used to read CA also. Well, my response is--screw Patrick, and screw CA. To me, the beauty of Harry's site is the lack of some of the things that Patrick's bitching about. Sure, Harry's made a few mistakes, but don't we all? How many mistakes do *you* make each day? Harry's in the position, as are all webmasters, where their mistakes are simply magnified for others. I, for one, am sick and tired of Patrick getting his frickin' panties in a bunch. And I wonder if he realizes just how much of an ass he's making himself look like with his whining. For me, the Godzilla reversal issue tells me everything I need to know about Patrick. I can't tell you how many movies I saw in a theater and absolutely loathed, then saw it on cable about a year later and thought "What was I thinking? This isn't so bad!" Or vice-versa. I'll be honest, I probably would have been swayed by the whole NYC Godzilla event as well and come away from that celluloid piece of dog shit thinking "Wow! What a movie!" We're just *human*, Patrick. And all I can say is to take your CA site and shove it. McFly<--

  • June 7, 2000, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Jimmy Smits causes cyber war.....

    by dynarama2

    To think that Jimmy Smits could cause this much trouble. Keep up the good work Harry and don't let the bastards get you down. And to everyone who posts Talkbacks with personnal digs at Harry, chill out life's too short. "Sort out your own shit before bitchin' about others" as it probably says in the Modern Bible. If you don't like it, don't bother coming to this site and adding to the hit count.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Harry, you're missing the point

    by TheGooch

    This site is a fan-based site. The reports, rumors and news are mostly brought by the fans. You are over-complicating the issues and over-stating what this site is. It's a site for fans and by fans...period. You need not conform to any bullshit regarding "journalistic integrity" beyond the desire to do the best you can. Stop trying to be the "be-all" and "end-all" of news. That's not what this site is about. I have spoken.

  • June 7, 2000, 8:24 a.m. CST

    One Last Time, Everybody:

    by Lance Rock

    It's = "it is". Its = possessive. it's good when a website understands its grammar.

  • June 7, 2000, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Thanks, Harry

    by Kikstad

    Harry, you've handled this well. (Hopefully you've also spoken individually with your peers about this). I'm glad to hear that you're willing to discuss the issues with your colleagues. What you've written here really restores my faith in AICN -- I have to admit that I was troubled by this incident. I still nitpick about your comment about editing quotes as you see fit -- true, you have the editorial right to alter content as you see fit for clarity, etc., but to that you must add that when such editing occurs it must be made clear to the reader that the original post, quotes, article, etc. was edited and is not being shown in its original form. These are things worth discussing, and I'm very glad to hear that you're willing to participate in professional discourse with your fellow leaders in the online community. All the best. -- Nick

  • June 7, 2000, 8:44 a.m. CST

    This response had one motive...

    by Spike Jonze

    This was all an excuse for Harry to tell everyone that he's down with John Carpenter. WHO CARES? The guy is way past his prime and no one is impressed. All it proves is that Carpenter is desperate for media coverage. So desperate, that he's inviting internet "reporters" (and I use that term lightly) to his house and giving them roles in movies.

  • June 7, 2000, 8:44 a.m. CST

    Harry did a spoiler without a warning

    by Ted Terrific

    I can't believe you didn't warn us a spoiler was coming. Darth Vader is Luke's father! Wow!

  • June 7, 2000, 8:45 a.m. CST

    You missed the turn for the High Road

    by soylentphil

    "But these talks shouldn

  • June 7, 2000, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Good points . . . but there IS a problem.

    by rk33

    Hey Harry, I think your points about reviewers having their own likes and dislikes is fair. One of the reasons why I like this site so much is because you and most of the other reviewers really try to describe the context of the viewing, not just the film itself. That's not only fun and interesting, it's really helpful, too.//But let's be clear about bias. There's normal, appropriate kinds of bias -- stuff that everyone deals with -- and then there's insideous and inappropriate kinds of bias.//How about this: (1) Saying that you're predisposed to liking Jim Carey films is not a very big problem or very unusual. Okay.(2) Accepting an exclusive, all-expenses-paid trip to see The Grinch from Ron Howard -- well, that's moving into rough waters. Who knows what the motives are behind something like that or how it will turn out? (Are you more clever than the movie-making PR machine that's got tens of millions on the line? I won't bet on it.) And then there's: (3) If you go to see The Grinch with a tacit agreement that you won't write about it, but -- who would'a guessed! -- because you LIKED the film, you're given PERMISSION to write about it. Well, in my book, that's a big problem, Harry. Maybe The Grinch is a great movie. Maybe Ron Howard is a hellava guy. Maybe you are, too. But when the rules of the game are, "We give you access -- but only if you agree not to talk . . . unless we like what you say," then you're acting like a PR guy for the film, not a movie reviewer.//What I like about AICN is that the information seems to be slightly out of control, which is such a refreshing contrast to most movie-making hype machines (and to most mainstream movies, too). When you make deals -- either (a) by accepting all-expenses-paid invitations from the studios to see a movie in a different time zone OR (b) by generating ad money from these very same studios, then using that money to fly cross country to see their products -- you are essentially being paid by the people whose work you are supposed to be judging. That may not always be a big problem w/r/t your reviews, but it's not exactly free expression, either. Later.

  • June 7, 2000, 9:05 a.m. CST


    by Joxer da Mighty

    Bravo Harry. When I first started reading this site back when it had that ID4 background, the thing that kept me coming back was the opinionated reviews, articles, the swears, the personal anecdotes thrown in... it really gave the site CHARACTER. That's what makes AICN the best damn site on the internet. I have nothing against Coming Attractions, I think they're great, but this 'editorial' seems just a bit like a jealous rant to me. Just my 2 cents. Keep up the FANTASTIC OPINIONATED work. (And I think that oscar list thing was blown way outa proportion).

  • June 7, 2000, 9:15 a.m. CST

    In The Center Of A Gnat's Navel...

    by Eli Cross

    ...there is a fragment of lint. Living on that fragment is a microscopic lifeform. On that lifeform's eyelash is a molecule of no import. If you took that molecule & cut it into a trillion pieces, not one of the pieces would be smaller than the interest I have over this ridiculous flapdoodle over ethics on websites. JESUS! Eli grows weary of such dorkspeak! Knock it off and lose the American Pie ad! Now, get back to work. Peace.

  • June 7, 2000, 9:40 a.m. CST

    For Cryin' Out Loud, Patrick!

    by mrbeaks

    You traffic in rumors against the wishes of the studios, but you want a code of ethics? Step back and think about this, and understand that there are thousands of people in this industry howling with laughter at the thought of such a "declaration of principals." The minute you guys decide to play fair and sign such an agreement, test screening reviews and clandestine set infiltrations (which isn't a problem for Harry, since he's often invited) will have to go out the window. Ask yourself, Patrick, in the grand scheme of things, have Harry's transgressions, such as you see them, been so inexcusable that you'd jeopardize your site's future? BTW, nice citing of CK, Harry. Remember, though, when Kane signs the contract, his face is half shrouded in darkness. 'Tis a metaphor for more than the man's character -- it extends to the profession of journalism, and, for our purposes, entertainment as well. Remember, guys..... we work in an industry where the Sammy Glicks will always win, while the nice guys eke out their victories where they can find them. I advise you never to sign such a well-intended, yet potentially suicidal agreement, and, instead, hew to your own personal code of ethics. And if this means Harry will continue to foster friendships with Carpenter, Howard, Clooney, and others, while the rest of you remain relative outsiders..... well, to cite another film with an appropriately cynical world view, "that's just the way it crumbles..... cookie-wise."

  • A good response, Harry. Now let's see how long it takes Patrick to say that you misquoted HIM and how YOU are the bad guy because of this and this and that. Sad that he wants to be more "professional." He's more like that little DA on the Practice or those Gen-X macho losers in Fight Club that just want to hit somebody hard. Very professional. PS, Harry, enough with the elipses, you don't need them interrupting your sentences so much. They don't translate the same dramatic feel to the reader that they have for you as the writer. It's just annoying, friend!

  • June 7, 2000, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Tell it like it is, Harry!

    by Ridge-Runner

    Stand your ground and don't let arrogant little Patrick push you around. Standards and ethics??? Give me a break! Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that all the film site webmasters meet in council and set up some "professional journalistic" ethical standards. Just who would enforce these? Patrick & Co.? Sounds like dear Patrick would propose something akin to setting up an internet "polizei". Sheesh! Get a life! Oh, yeah! PLEASE GET RID OF THAT STUPID "AMERICAN PIE" POP_UP!!!!! It's annoying as hell!!!! Ridge-Runner

  • June 7, 2000, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Waitaminute! A well wriitten article from HARRY??

    by One Angry Dwarf

    Let's see here: Introduction, point, counterpoint, wrap-up, conclusion, no spelling errors and NO ELLIPSES? Who are you and what have you done with the real Harry Knowles?

  • June 7, 2000, 10:11 a.m. CST

    hee hee

    by sir smogsalot

    nothing funnier than a fat guy back-pedaling.

  • June 7, 2000, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Amazing the length a shepherd will go to herd the sheep.

    by Nimrod

    Wow. I disagree with people, opinions, sites, subject matter, but who cares? I have the freedom to choose another site if I want. If some other site is going to bash things I read, good for them, I could care less. I am an educated person who can form my own opinion, without the need of your (anybody's) opinion being shoved down my throat. You disagree with Harry, good for you. I have, but I keep it to myself or post in a talkback or in a chat room. Bottom line is no one cares about the bashing. If it makes you feel better for doing it, yipee for you, I think less of you for doing it (This is addressed to anyone, not CA or Harry in particular). In the words of John Travolta (Broken Arrow)...."Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke."

  • June 7, 2000, 10:31 a.m. CST

    I am a longtime visitor...

    by herow/1000faces

    ...that enjoys yet RARELY joins in on the talkbacks...but I've just got to put my two cents in on this one. The only reason I know about the Coming Attractions site at all is because Harry linked to them in one of his scoops. I am now a frequent visitor of Coming Attractions and have always enjoyed Patrick's site. I was (it seems foolishly) under the assumption that all the movie scoop/review websites were friendly. My mistake. Message to Harry- don't apologize for anything! It's unfortunate that you had to write any rebuttal at all. I'm sure your are indebted to Patrick for a scoop or a lead here and there. And I know for a fact that he is beholden to you for my patronage of his site. It's all even-steven. With the right connections and some tough legwork, anyone can get movie scoops. It's HOW THEY ARE PRESENTED that makes one site better than another, not the scoops themselves. You seem to have a good handle on this, Patrick would do well to remember that people are in this to be entertained and to feel like they are part of a community. The Hero - out.

  • June 7, 2000, 10:32 a.m. CST

    One More Thing.....

    by mrbeaks

    If all you want is a strictly fact-based movie news site, go to The webmasters are connected and the reportage is absolutely devoid of hyperbole. It ain't sexy, but it's accurate (and, no, I'm not in anyway connected to the site. I just happen to like the site, and thought there might be some of you out there unaware of its presence.)

  • June 7, 2000, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Beetlejuice for New York Senator!

    by KingMenthol

    It is complete and utter bullshit to even have to address this. Get a clue, Patrick. You're acting like a whiny beeyatch, just like T-Bone and Vader. Alexandra DuPont has once again proven her supreme intellect in her understanding of the very central issue: there are no rules, should not be rules, and there cannot be rules on the internet. It is truly the only place in the world that is still free from Big Brother and people, normal people, like it that way. Furthermore, Harry received the scoop as well!! He didn't even have to mention CA! Patrick: don't be a sorry sod. Run your site as you see fit and don't worry about what Harry's saying about your scoops. Jonbenet knows evil love.

  • June 7, 2000, 11 a.m. CST


    by danhelm

    I must agree with the lot of you, this entire issue smacks of sour grapes. With all due respect, Mr. Sauriol sounds like a whiner. He writes "While this issue over proper credit is minor, it has sparked a debate. More than a debate, a WAR over internet ethics. Sauriol has taken Knowles to task on his site in a thoughtful essay called "A Question of Ethics." No "professional" would call his own essay "thoughtful"; its arrogant. As for the gripe about "journalist integrity", I dounbt anyone has ever thought of this site as anything other than a rumor mill of sorts; this is not Entertainment Weekly, nor should it be. As for this "WAR" on ethics, I sense that the casual reader will respond to this will a collective "who cares?" On with the cool news, I say...

  • June 7, 2000, 11:34 a.m. CST

    AICN vs. Corona

    by jroman1976

    I've followed the recent events with a sense of wonder. What many people seem to be forgetting or simply denying to themselves, is that this disagreement wasn't supposed to be a public debate. This was private e-mail correspondence between different webmasters that wasn't even final in form or content. AICN took it upon themself to prematurely air it in the public forum without making any attempt to resolve the issues with the other webmasters. They acted like a child in a playground who has a disagreement with a couple of other children, but instead of trying to compromise or resolve the problem, they ran and shouted it to all the other children saying "Look what they did!" I probably visit the other sites more often than AICN because I don't like the layout and the organization here. At AICN I often find that everything meanders without a clear point. I don't think that AICN should have to conform, but I do think that a discussion about ethics and such would be a good idea for all webmasters with similar sites. We hear more and more discussion about censoring and controlling things on the internet. While we are still in the driver's seat (so to speak) we should try to act responsibly so as to limit avenues for attack.

  • June 7, 2000, 11:36 a.m. CST

    The last straw

    by ChowYunFatBastrd

    I've been coming here since just before AICN got noticed in the mass media. Back when it was "cool". I've seen the quantity and quality of the information/rumor/scoops decline severely and constantly, to be replaced by.... what? Fluff, personal crusades and the occasional interesting info (the Asian and Euro-AICN portions are still worth reading). I think it is tremendously foolish and naive of Patrick or any other Webmaster to ask others to adhere to a set of rules and guidelines. The Net is what it is because it is (mostly) free of such constraints. The issue at hand is not that. Nothing's wrong with attitude. But bad faith, childishness and blatant, VOLUNTARY unprofessionalism is the wrong attitude to have, on the Net or anywhere else you want to be part of a group. Airing dirty laundry in public is simply unacceptable and shows painfully obvious lack of class and character. You MUST face the fact that you've changed Harry, your site has changed. I for one find it has changed for the worse, maybe that ain't everyone's opinion.As for other people's mistakes, it's your goddamn site, and YOU are ultimately responsible for everythign that gets posted on it, no matter who wrote what. That's the way it is with responsible people at the head of anything. You get the glory and you get the sh*t when it hits the fan (or the fans, in this case). There just isn't enough content of interest on AICN anymore to keep me here in view of recent events. I bid you farewell and hope you don't implode like you seem poised to do... ChowYunFatBastrd aka Ed Straker.

  • June 7, 2000, 11:36 a.m. CST

    How Far Can You Push a Fat Man?

    by Uncle_Sam

    Perhaps this is the point where we call into question the importance of a particular dialogue, and consider whether or not it be continued further. Each and every of the internet film-geek sites financially exists by presenting small amounts of Hollywood information that has been gained, somewhere along the line, by one person's betrayal of another's trust. In essence, this whole fucking business is based on dishonorable practices. AICN and Corona's fucking scoops violate basic ehical principles. Is the midnight entertainment of a few hundred thousand geeks worth a place in hell? Harry is a big fucking fan of Star Trek; everyone knows that. He should sit down and ask himself,"Would a Klingon AICN fly?" "Would Picard approve?" Whatever. Everything is nonsense. You geeks take this shit too seriously. If Harry wants to stay up all night drafting a response to Coming Attractions, then let him. It only goes to show how foolish, childish, and absurd he really is. For these webmasters to be attacking each other over the rights to scoops is a great oxymoron: ethical thieves. A fucking comedy. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke. Harry is a big, fat joke.

  • June 7, 2000, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by Zeno

    Harry is trying to talk "deal": Let him. We stand nothing to gain from a protracted fanboy coldwar, with our favorite site (AICN) versus all the other sites. I'm not talking Neville Chamberlain here; more like Sarek (sans Vulcan Alzheimers).

  • The fucking people who run these fuckin sites need to shut the fuck up. Nobody cares about your whiny little wars so keep them the fuck to yourselves. What a bunch of whiny ass babies.... "It was MY story!" "No it was MINE!" "WHA!WHA!WHA!" You all need to step back, take a deep breath, and get a grip. These arent state secrets we're talking about... and nobody who reads these sites gives two damns about who covered the stories first. This is all about all of your own little tortured, abused, bruised, over-inflated egos.shut up!

  • June 7, 2000, 12:10 p.m. CST

    From a "journalist's" point of view ...

    by X-P.A.

    This exchange has been fun to follow, I have to admit. What everyone may be missing is that this style of reporting is still in its infancy, really. And content directors are just cutting their gums with real business and journalism issues. ... What everyone running a web site in this genre has to realize is that you are in competition with one another. And that can remain friendly competition. Within the newspaper industry and trade magazine industry (where I've toiled away for seven years), everyone knows everyone and is friendly to everyone, but when it comes to getting a story, we want to get it first. Or at the very least, cover it better than the competition. ... It's difficult to do, and really hard to scoop someone else, especially in the marketing/PR/Internet world today. ... Just like websites, magazines and newspapers read everyone else's magazine and newspaper, to see what they have that we don't. Then we go and get it, if we deem it newsworthy. No one in this industry shares information, either. I'm actually surprised to see all of these sites working together, especially considering how many are moving into the advertising income realm. At some point, you're going to hurt yourself if by sharing information. Your advertisers want to know that readers are coming to you first and every day, and you have to give your readers a reason to do that. If they could give or take your site, so will your advertisers. Am I saying, don't share information? Yes. Is that nice and liberal, like me, personally? No. But I think it's important. ... I like both Coming Attractions and AICN, but I don't visit either one everyday, by the way. Well, that's not true. I have been visiting AICN everyday, and visit CA when I want specific information about a specific film. AICN feels more like a fan site (outside the realm of professional film journalism) than CA, which reads more like a collection of notes than professional film journalism. Harry, I think your site is most successful because you've branded yourself. We know 'Harry,' and we either like him or don't. It's like we know Roger Ebert or Pauline Kael. Harry's the lowbrow (sorry, but I think that's how the media views these sites) film critic. More informed than most, less well-written than most. ... I realize this is all a bunch of ideas jumbled together, but I can't help but think this spat between sites is really--naive. You've all surpassed your original intent simple by the force of the Internet, the media and public opinion. You're becoming news outlets and need to act as such. Which isn't to say you need to change anything inparticular. It means you have to take that next step (and, Harry, it sounds like you are) and become "Rolling Stone" or "Alternative Press" or any other magazine that started as a newsletter and has become something to be reckoned with. ... It does, too, Harry, mean you have to start using your Spellchecker, and you should pick up an AP guide to newswriting. Hone your craft. Become as a good a film journalist as you are a film fan. You can do it. It ain't hard. ... Take it from me, I studied film in college, have spent time working in script development and as a Production Assitant, and went back to thing I did all through high school and college -- journalism. ... Be professional, let others gripe about you, address their concerns, but hold to your guns and say you're going to run your site the way you see fit. ... Boy, this was longer and more of a mess than I intended it to be. Did that make sense?

  • June 7, 2000, 12:12 p.m. CST


    by haunted

    Forget it. I've noticed that journalists in all media, not just the web, suffer from a severe lack of ethics.

  • June 7, 2000, 12:24 p.m. CST

    ...And stick it up your YEAH!

    by Bonedriven

    You go, Harry! I enjoy your site with it's colorful cartoons of you in different movies on the upper left, your opinions, and the scoops you get. It's good to visit a site that has the same tastes as I do and makes me as excited about the movies that AICN does. I've been to CA and used them for some info for my movie reviews (always citing them as sources), but for rumors and upcoming movies, I prefer AICN. Way to stick it to 'em.

  • June 7, 2000, 12:51 p.m. CST

    You're right! This is boring...

    by 33.3rpm

    Public nerd fights are so sad. Milky white, fat skin being slapped. Glasses falling off. Retainers flying. Starchy, light blue shirts being ripped. Oh, the fuckin' humanity.... Let's move on.

  • Harry didn't mention in any way that he was COMPLETELY in the wrong for having posted a private email complete with email addresses without the permission of anyone involved in a public forum. He should have at least had the decency to 1.) Remove those email addresses from his site ASAP. (The email addresses as of 11:03am PDT 6-7-00 WERE STILL POSTED PUBLICLY!) 2.) Apologize for having posted that information in the first place. For the most part, the rest of the debate is open for speculation, but this issue is NOT. Harry needs to wash his public toilet and get those email addresses off the walls, and apologize for putting them up there in the first place.

  • June 7, 2000, 1 p.m. CST

    utter pap

    by eXcriMENt

    "As long as we bicker amongst ourselves in these bitter battles in front of the public we reveal ourselves to be small and childish." - Harry "Film or Fame" Knowles

  • June 7, 2000, 1:07 p.m. CST

    An open letter to Patrick Saurioul (Did I spell your name right,

    by nighthawk rambler

    Patrick, you may ask yourself, how did a carrot top, goat ropin', pudsucker like Harry Knowles eclipse my site with his free for all style? I feel your pain. It feels sour, it feels a bit like grapes but an old broken down bionic prototype like myself can understand. The stump that my titanium alloy synthetic prototype arm is attatched to still itches. Perhaps your ego that lost the online movie site war itches too. An old spook like myself that sacrificed years, loved ones and body parts to the defense of this country has grown used to the junk heap. From the nuts and bolts that lay around me I will re-master my relevance and reconstruct my fate. If you play your cards right you'll reconstruct your own. Let me give you a little nudge in the right direction. Let me tell you how Harry Knowles came out of nowhere and beat you, in a word, style. The French call it panache and Harry's sight has plenty of it. Your sight itself seems to be a little drier and more facts oriented than AICN. Flair doesn't destroy the credibility of Harry's cinematic opinion, it simply makes it feel more accessible and fun to read. Like something any fan boy could write. People value that accessibility. Before you get too tit for tat and too ugly about this situation, before you caste yourself as the hard ass, pull back, reflect and maybe even rethink your need for credibility and your animosity towards Knowles. Let your personality come through in your love of movies not your reservations about Harry, his style and his "lucky" rise to the top. Sometime the rise to fame is simply that, "the luck of the draw." Paramount is that you take yourself lightly. Nobody wants to get wind that you're dorky enough to think you're CNN. You're a geek that got lucky, don't forget that or they'll crucify you for it. Harry is always willing to call himself a geek and underneath that he works his magic. You want to be credible so bad that you risk having no magic at all. Invest in pixie dust buy yourself a sense of humor and get off your high horse. Your fans will love you for it. I'm the hawk I've been burned by the flame too.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:21 p.m. CST

    X-P.A. hits the nail on the head

    by Enax

    The amusing part of this debate is Patrick striving for legitimacy by trying to impose ethics on fanboy movie rumor websites. In "legitimate" news reporting, it's all about getting the scoop first. Do you think in some reporter overhears an interview with Jack Nicholson in a restaurant and hears some juice bit of gossip that he's going to run it by the interviewer and make sure he gets the proper credit and byline? If a group of reporters mobs a politician coming out of the White House, does any quote he makes belong solely to the person that asks the question? This Patrick Sauriol has made a fool out of himself. At least we know what Harry is about, his background, his likes and dislikes. From there we can draw our conclusions about his credibility. He has explained quite reasonably about such things as the Godzilla review. Patrick has no identity now except for one of a jealous twit desperate for recognition.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Interesting how it's turned into AICN vs CA

    by superninja

    How easily you all jump on the bandwagon. I've read both rebuttals from CA and AICN. It's something you might want to look into if you haven't already. It's good to know both sides before you pipe in with your $.02. First of all, Harry is evading the issue that more than one webmaster has felt he's been wronged by AICN, and he also fails to mention the list of people that were "outed" who, frankly, didn't indicate one way or the other if they were going to sign the letter in the first place. Not a good way to make friends. Harry's lengthy editorials are what draws some people to this site. But really, now it's the TalkBacks. Harry could've addressed this issue with CA on a personal level, but why do that when you can get a "million" hits on TalkBack and address the issue in a "professional" manner as well?

  • June 7, 2000, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Harry's cred...

    by KP

  • June 7, 2000, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Just Think About Ethics

    by DarthGundam

    You know Mr. Knowles, it is somewhat sad that you even run an internet site. Not only do you take the time to post news from other sites, you do it in such a way that it is so uncouth that the most diabolical murderer/serial killer would be insulted. You my friend, much to the dismay of a large group of people, run a website that is somewhat popular in the film website industry. Not the film industry, that's a completely different ball game. With the ability to publish public accessable material you should also have some sort of responsibility to do so in a clean organized fashion. Your ability to take and distort items from Corona's Coming Attractions website is a prime example of how much of an unclean ogre you can be. You should seriously think about checking yourself into one of those self help programs, and while you're serving your 28 days, you might want to buy yourself a vocabulary book. Your language is always less than desirable, you use extremely offensive terms and expressions in your writings, and your ego is larger than Rosanne's backside. The ability to print items and publish them on the internet is one that comes with great responsibility. Take care when posting items, use caution when selecting terms from your limited vocabulary, and treat your former film site peers with respect. Oh, one last comment - that fuzzy footage rumor that you posted last year? It was never fuzzy, there was grease from that 6 foot long sub that you swallowed in 2 seconds. Darth Gundam

  • June 7, 2000, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Jealousy. That is the correct word. Your's is the only site that

    by say no more

  • June 7, 2000, 1:40 p.m. CST

    In defense of corona....

    by 20th Century Fox

    Woah there....Yeah you read right....Patrick has some vaild points several of which were not even satisfactorly answered...The Godzilla thig is a symptom of a larger problem....a problem as one talkbacker stated clairified by the Grinch Trip....I agree there are problems when the head of the a site who says time and time again "I'm here to protect the flim goer from bad films..." Yet he gets a exclusive peek at them in progress told to sign a non-disclosure agreement then he says I LOVE IT and lo and behold hes allowed to write about the film....THIS IS A MAJOR PROBLEM!!!!!!! Hey I'll start buying this objectivity crap when hes flown out at all expenses to see a rough cut and goes out and says THIS MOVIE SUCKS NOTHING CAN SAVE IT!!!!!! But I know i wont hold my breath since we all know that the minute that happens you harry can kiss any support from that flimmaker good bye...Also lets clear up something when a flim maker pays for sometihng like one of harry trips its usally the studio who picks up the tab (The flim maker simply bills the studio for the expense he incurred....) I mean can anyone here site a time when harry was flown somewhere and said something negitive about what he saw? I sure cant....%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%That being said I still come here but I take many things he says with boxcars full of salt......If youve been offended please send all hate mail too

  • June 7, 2000, 1:43 p.m. CST

    You ban for crudeness?!? What the F ?? Who was it that put up th

    by EL Duderino

    Oh, and Battlefield Earth was hilarious. The ending was supposed to be very serious, but I burst out laughing at the big finale. I'd see it again just to heckle it. For instance, why the hell did the film open with that dude finding out his father was dead (don't worry, this is NOT a spoiler, you never hear about this again, it's in the first minute of the film, and it is completely incoherent to the plot). SEE BATTLEFIELD EARTH!!

  • June 7, 2000, 1:44 p.m. CST

    About Those email Addresses.....

    by mrbeaks

    Every single one of those addresses are posted on their respective websites. This was not some awful breach of privacy. Their personal e-mails were *not* listed. The only mistake I would be willing to call Harry on would be that BLAIR WITCH 2 posting, but I figure that was just a massive oversight that was corrected before too many people saw it. Should he have been more contrite? I would've, but then again, I'm not privy to all of the information regarding that incident; so, who cares what I think? And if you think this is all Harry's fault, remember that PATRICK WAS GOING TO POST THE ORIGINAL LETTER ON HIS WEBSITE REGARDLESS. Harry, being a bit of a smartass, decided to scoop him on the letter. This would've been a public row no matter what.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:47 p.m. CST

    CHUD PARNK thinks Harry is just needs some education.....


    O k a y. No offense Harry, at least not too much. But professional is just not a word that can be uswed regarding you actions here. It is obvious you have no buisness traing whatsoever. You work is showing it. Right now , you are just a pale version of FRAMER from Seinfeld. Remember the epeisode. You are trying to make this into a buisness, and everything else is suffering for it. The quality of your work is way way down. People are noticing it. There are always a few you will fuck with you for no reason and call you names like sellout. But not this many. And certainly not the other professionals on the internet. Youe works just sucks lately. No getting around it. Shape up and leave the buisness aspect of the site to someone who know it. Think about hiring a publicist or an editor even. They have a purpose you could benefit from. You stick your foot in your mouth way too much. And a lot of people have noticed this time. CHUD PARNK will hound you until redemption.

  • "You my friend, much to the dismay of a large group of people, run a website that is somewhat popular in the film website industry. Not the film industry, that's a completely different ball game." Why, then, was Harry considered one of the most powerful people in Hollywood a year ago, and why do people like Michael De Luca post here?

  • June 7, 2000, 1:51 p.m. CST

    CHUD PARNK also says get rid of the damn Am. Pie POP UP!!!!!!!


    GET RID OUT IT. IT DEFINES SELLOUT ON THE INTERNET!! CHUD PARNK will hound you until redemption.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:54 p.m. CST

    To Agent 008...

    by KaijuKiller

    On the Godzilla pic---Harry actually did have a pic---my old website Godzilla News(now Monster Zero at had the very first pics of the full Godzilla design---I had plenty of designs, etc and sent them to Harry--which for whatever reasons he decided to call fake or say that they didn't look like what he saw. Of course they turned out to be real, but thats in the past.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Professional jealousy

    by marsyas

    Patrick's attempt at coming across as a serious journalist with a legitimate criticism is undermined by his tendency to throw in irrelevant slams. While he is not totally without grounds for complaint, I don't see what the issue at hand has to do with Harry's style of reviewing, or with the Oscar fiasco, or even with his acceptance of small perks from the studios. Such comments reveal Patrick's editorial as little more than a petulant tirade against a more successful competitor. The charge is utterly baseless. He implies that AICN has some sort of policy or "tactic" for downplaying the role of his site, when it should be clear that the incidents he cites are the result of mere carelessness. Harry and crew are not well enough organized to carry out the type of conspiracy that Patrick alleges. While AICN does owe an apology for a few of the careless mistakes they have made, for the most part the apologies had already been given at the time of Patrick's writing. This is clearly a personal vendetta fueled by professional jealousy.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Personal email addresses were posted.

    by chant

    Get your facts right, Beaks. Some of the email addresses were general accounts and others were not. One person in particular asked for me to include his personal email address on it. And another example of AICN telling its readership one thing, then finding out the facts are something completely different, happened again today on another STAR WARS 2 posting. And to any of you zealots who are so quick to throw your voices to curse and act like a 4-year-old in front of a keyboard without giving Harry or my editorials any thought, consider this: if you say there are no rules and you can choose to present information any way you want -- would you then be complaining if it was *another* site that had done this to AICN? Let's see some more intelligent talk on this matter and less insults. The easy road is to call names rather than *think* about the matter. It only makes AICN's credibility look weaker.

  • June 7, 2000, 1:57 p.m. CST

    by Harvey Dent

    Cut me some slack in advance for the scattered nature of this post since I'll talking about several different topics. First, Harry's reviews and his personal experiences expressed therein are more helpful than you realize to a thinking moviegoer. So you don't care what Harry ate for breakfast that day, so what? His relation of his experiences provides a context for interpreting his reviews. No one has ever agreed with everything a critic says over the span of his/her career; we all learn to pick and choose what opinions we will believe and/or trust. When Harry professes his love for Carpenter and you recall that you didn't like Vampires, guess what, that's clue one not to trust his opinion on his films. To connect this to a larger issue, when Harry tells us he's been to a premiere such as those for Godzilla and Armageddon, we should all know this will undoubtedly influence his opinion, as it should. Everyone knows your environment affects the moviegoing experience. Don't believe me? Ever seen a comedy in a packed house, then again in an empty theater? Entirely different experiences. And how could you blame Harry for taking advantage of these opportunities? Would you want to go to Cannes or see an early print of The Grinch or be in a movie? "Hell yes" should be your answer. Just remember that his opinion will be distorted by such an experience, because you will not be in Madison Square Garden when you see Godzilla and you certainly will not have live accompaniment for Armageddon by Aerosmith. If you thought you'd get anything more than a Bruckheimer action flick from Armageddon just because of Harry's glowing review, wise up. Second, let's talk about ethics. Some of you are correct. This is the internet. The beauty of this internet is its unregulated nature. There are no posted rules. There are, however, people involved, and there are basic rules of etiquette when dealing with other people. They have feelings and they have egos. Everyone makes enemies in life without trying. Why go out of your way to behave in such a manner as to create more enemies? There's no good reason. Cite other people's work clearly. Apologize more profusely than necessary. These are easy things to do, and they pay off in the long run. On a related note, making your editing practices known will gain you respect and possibly prevent more events like this. How hard would it be to add a little note to each post about what, if anything, was changed, deleted, or added, and for what reasons. Most people would probably skip it, like me, but it would satisfy those posters that worry about their comments being changed. Third, Patrick sounds like he's biting the hand that feeds him. Like at least one of the posters before me, I discovered this site first and all others through this one. If it wasn't for AICN, I would never have checked out CA, DH or any of the other fan sites. I'm sure I'm not alone. As the foremost fan-run movie site on the web (in the public's eye), AICN provides a gateway to all the other sites including CA. Cut Harry some slack. All those hits he sends your way pay your bills. Fourth, let's all say it together, ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN AMERICAN PIE ADS!

  • June 7, 2000, 2 p.m. CST

    I Feel Compelled To Repost This Talkback I Posted Many Moons Ago

    by Henry Chinaski

    Hey Harry, I agree with you that it would be a refreshing change for a major studio to go ahead and release a flick with a downer ending, despite the advice of the bean counters. However, for you, the great (and I mean Great Big) Harry Knowles to actually respond to a Talkback (I know it has happened before a few times, but it is rare) concerning your knowledge of studio executives' knowledge of strong films smacks of desperation. Sure, you might have read the script, but, you sad excuse for a player, you sure as hell haven't seen the flick. And your disappointing cut and paste information for The People Vs. Larry Flynt from the IMDB demonstrates you are only as cutting edge as the information that the public and the industry provides you. Please don't forget you're just a fat film geek from Austin who decided to parlay his love of film into a cool public forum for the rest of us fat film geeks around the world. Your response to a troublemaking cynic like Nickarcel (or myself, for that matter) was so sad, desperate, and heart-rending. Pay attention to the site, you geek, Universal hates you just as much as they hate the rest of us with a passion for film. "I know because it's what I do!" That quote made me laugh so fucking hard. You self-important deluded with illusions of grandeur clown! What you do is answer your phone and cut and paste e-mail you've received from the true people in the know and it kills you that you're not more deeply involved. "I could've gone to one of the preview screenings of Episode I, but I turned down the pass. I am such a true fan!" Hang on, Harry, we're all going to hoist you on our shoulders. Like I said, hang on, it might take a little while. Just another example of how you have to rely on others to make what little connections to the film industry you have. And far as telling the others to educate themselves, I am educated to the fucking gills with film theory and film history, as well as english literature. No less than you, Harry. I simply rely on your site for the info I need; just like I rely on Coming Attractions, ShowBizWire, Drew's Script-O-Rama, IMDB, The, and all the others I haven't mentioned. Don't forget your geek roots, geek, we never will. The only positive thing about your fat head is that it is now proportionate with your fat ass. This rant is not based on envy, all of us geeks struggle with the knowledge that the endless useless trivia stuffed inside our heads won't earn us a fucking dime in the real world, it is based on the opinion that this site is heading down the crapper because you are more deeply involved in becoming a player (you may have even deluded yourself because of Premiere's hopelessly out of date the moment it hits the stands Top 100 list) than in making this previously outstanding site stronger and more informative than it ever was. How's Pauly Shore, Harry? How's your quest for that porn star girlfriend going? We're all curious. More curious than hearing about why you are so cool. "I know because it's what I do." Holy Mother of God, pure fucking early morning comedy!

  • June 7, 2000, 2:02 p.m. CST

    slight contradiction

    by korvac

    "But these talks shouldn

  • June 7, 2000, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Patrick, Patrick, Patrick.....

    by mrbeaks

    Yeah, so Harry got duped. Like you've never posted false information about EPISODE 2. So, Harry believed it was true, and said so. Most of us who work in the industry know well enough to read between the lines. I'm just as skeptical when I read stories at AICN as I am when I peruse CA. If there was a personal e-mail mixed in there with the general ones, I missed it, and therefore retract my earlier statement. That was wrong. Still stand by everything else, however.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:12 p.m. CST

    And I must remind some of you again...

    by chant's rather obvious now that this matter is not about jealousy. Again, I remind you that Harry and I have spoken numerous times privately, yet these matters keep coming up. Unlike the picture that "Marsyas" paints above, this has risen beyond "thoughtlessness". If AICN wants the respect of its peers, it should try and earn it. I give AICN all the respect in the world on my site, and so do a great many webmasters. But again, this isn't between CA and AICN. Others -- a lot of others -- felt this same way and presented their thoughts in the emails. Harry has chosen to post only two of, like I said, dozens of emails from the people on the list. People who did not personally attack Harry but offered their opinion. Harry has chosen to address some of the issues I raised in my editorial but not all. Harry's chosen to consider this an issue between be and CA, while other sites have posted their own editorials and continue to do so. We are trying to treat this professionally because these sites matters to all of us, and yes, they are a business and a responsibility now, like it or not. Believe me, I'm not jealous of Harry or his direction in life.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Nice try

    by marsyas

    Note that Patrick did not attempt to defend his irrelevant slams. That's because he can't. They did not belong anywhere near his editorial, and he knows it.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:18 p.m. CST


    by timdog

    You ramble on and on about journalism and ethics and discression and god knows what else... But it seems that the one skill you're missing, is the ABILITY TO BE CONCISE... Jeez I had to take 3 naps before I managed to get to the end of that thing. Good stuff, but tooooooooo dammnnnnnnnnnn lonnnnnnnnggggg.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Talkback out of order again

    by marsyas

    See message "Nice try".

  • June 7, 2000, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Journalism Ethics? You Can Find That Next to Miliary Intelligen

    by Buzz Maverik

    I love AICN & talkback because it provides a place to talk about movies and not films. Movies. Most major critics dismiss movies completely so you can't get any discussion of their worth or lack of worth. And in Hollywood they embrace the top ten like facehuggers so that last week's crap and the hack who made it is revered. I like the stories here and the feeling put into them and the opinions, especially when I don't agree with them. Rock on, Harry!

  • June 7, 2000, 2:36 p.m. CST

    Miliary Intelligence? Left Out the Damn "T"

    by Buzz Maverik

  • June 7, 2000, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Damn You Harry!

    by Orestes

    What?? Darth Vader is Luke's father!?! Dammit, Harry, you just ruined the rest of the trilogy for me. I'll never come back here again!

  • June 7, 2000, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Let's be honest here.

    by All Thumbs

    AICN, Coming Attractions and the rest are to Internet news what the National Enquirer is to legit news sources like The Wall Street Journal--they are total opposites. They work under entirely different standards of conduct and report in an entirely different fashion. "News" sources like AICN and CA, much like the Enquirer, are fun to read, but not very accurrate and not in any way what one would consider a good source of ethics. You guys post RUMOURS that may or may not turn out to be true. Most times they're false. You all tack on your opinions and you all have your biases. You run these sites out of your love for movies, I hope, and not to make a profit. (Though I understand that's necessary in order to keep a site going.) Once you guys decide to go down that road of "professionalism" and call yourself a legitimate newssource and journlists, you will have to pick up a code of ethics and you will have to watch your p's and q's. Right now, I think it's unneccessary to have a set code of ethics because all these sites deal in something that goes beyond ethics, anyways. That's not to say there shouldn't be common courtesy among you all. If a source is absolutely known, then credit it. Put credit and copyright on pictures, if only to save your butts from a lawsuit from the studios. Don't put personal e-mail addresses, unless permission is given, on a story or commentary. If you guys want to go down the road of journalism, then you'll actually have to verify any rumours you receive. You'll have to enter press junkets and use AP style and conform to a code of ethics similar to that laid out in the Society of Professional Journalists. Do you really want to do that? Do your FANS really want you to do that? Think before you throw these terms around and stop calling yourselves journalists if you're going to be posting rumours and other related crap. You're insulting journalists, and while it's not hard to do, it's an insult that for once is not warranted. Like those who work for the Enquirer, you may be reporters, but I'll be damned if you can call yourself professional journalists.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:51 p.m. CST

    And to Patrick

    by All Thumbs

    In the latest post I just read on TB, you call yourself a business. Fine. Then take down the Episode 2 rumours because not only is it bad journalistic ethics, it's also poor business practice. Even the supermarket tabloids post more accurate info than the stuff I've read on many of these films sites, especially AICN and CA. I would also like to say that Harry seems to be addressing you mostly because you're the one who pressed the issue in the first place. Yes, I know "this whole thing" has been going on for a while and with other sites, but you're the one who wrote the first editorial and, unfortunately, Harry posted it here and then this whole mess started and now it's all out of whack. And while I personally find this interesting, I think it should be left between you site owners to decide where you all are going. Are you merely fan sites or are you models of journalism and professionalism. Please let us know and stop confusing the masses. Thank you.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:51 p.m. CST

    ok, so let's here about movies

    by KenTilZha

    Ok, this has only gone on publically for a few days, and quite frankly, I'm already bored with it. I'd just like to read about some movies, thank you. That's what the sites are for. They're not for credit (or at least shouldn't be) or who scooped who, I just want to read about movies. I've checked out the other sites in the past, but quite frankly they never kept my attention. Harry's reviews have tended to agree with my views on films, and so I put more weight in what he has to say. It's the same reaosn I liked Siskel more than Ebert, and never read my local newspaper reviewer. So, Harry, just don't let the site's (and your) popularity go to your head, and keep on giving us good ol' reviews and rumors. You're right, this bickering is just plain boring. (Oh, and once you start hiring some full time staff, I have a resume ready!)

  • June 7, 2000, 2:52 p.m. CST


    by Shadowstar

    I was going to fade quietly into the light...but I am just about sick of seeing these piss-ant posts. GEEESH! I just went over to CHUD to vent a little and I come back and see the last above posts...including CHANT or Patrick or whatever. THIS IS GETTING VERY, VERY OLD PEOPLE...GET OVER IT ALREADY! I don't want to get off on a rant here...(all credit given to Dennis Miller) but... If you guys can't agree to a summit or something...then just friggin' move on. This is the proverbial dead horse...and the beating has gone through to the center of the Earth! PATRICK (chant or whatever), What is it that you expect Harry to do? Do you want a figgin sacrifice at midnight? Should he run through the streets of Ausitn naked? (On second thought, please don't request that!) What are you trying to get from the continuation of this mindless bickering. You made your move on! As I keep repeating to all of you..."If you got the goods...there is no need to advertise!" Focus your energy on being the best at what you do...Take all this pent up energy and use it to make CA a great site...a site worthy of praise and admiration. So Harry didn't bow down and give you what you wanted (a blow job?)...He did more than he needed to, in my view. I like both of your sites for various reasons...many of them different. He does his thing and you do yours...So what if he happens to get noticed by the 'mainstream'...Wish him luck and keep pluggin' away...There are too many networks and news outlets and cable stations out there...and Harry can't be the film geek for all of them! Get your own gig, man...COMPETE! You can't win unless you play the game. This perpetuation on your part...and Harry's I must add...does nothing but make you both seem like prissy prima-donnas (no I don't know if I spelled that right and frankly my dear...I don't give a damn!) Patrick, voicing your displeasure once, even twice is voicing a complaint...but the continous sniping and comments on the subject can be construed as 1) nagging, or 2) whinning. You have made your point. Move on...both of you. As I stated in my very first post here...mistakes and wrongs were made with this particular incident. I can't comment on the past...but since both of you made this thing public...I will state again for the record that A) Patrick was wrong for trying to organize a 'lynch mob' and B) Harry was wrong for posting letter and the addresses. THIS IN NO WAY takes away from your position Patrick...but it does, however, make you look like James Spader's character in 'Wolf'. Harry was just defending his 'turf'...a normal reaction, but one that seemed born of adolescent retaliation rather than a well thought out adult response (which, BTW, the post from Harry above is). So like I agreed with Kiksdad yesterday...You guys should ORGANIZE A FRIGGIN' SUMMIT and hash this out if you really are serious about it...Trying to form a gang to beat up one guy is just cowardice, in my humble opinion. Then again, if you are wanting to treat this whole thing like a business...then stop your beyotchin. You think Bill Gates was "Mr. Nice Guy" as he was building his empire? I doubt it...and speaking of My. Gates, you see what is happening to him, don't you? I rest my case on that point. So please PATRICK, HARRY, NICK and any other webmaster/movie fan site/film scoopers...pretty please, with sugar on top...get back to the friggin' movie reviews/scoops/discussions...and I'm spent.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:53 p.m. CST


    by Shadowstar

    I was going to fade quietly into the light...but I am just about sick of seeing these piss-ant posts. GEEESH! I just went over to CHUD to vent a little and I come back and see the last above posts...including CHANT or Patrick or whatever. THIS IS GETTING VERY, VERY OLD PEOPLE...GET OVER IT ALREADY! I don't want to get off on a rant here...(all credit given to Dennis Miller) but... If you guys can't agree to a summit or something...then just friggin' move on. This is the proverbial dead horse...and the beating has gone through to the center of the Earth! PATRICK (chant or whatever), What is it that you expect Harry to do? Do you want a figgin sacrifice at midnight? Should he run through the streets of Ausitn naked? (On second thought, please don't request that!) What are you trying to get from the continuation of this mindless bickering. You made your move on! As I keep repeating to all of you..."If you got the goods...there is no need to advertise!" Focus your energy on being the best at what you do...Take all this pent up energy and use it to make CA a great site...a site worthy of praise and admiration. So Harry didn't bow down and give you what you wanted (a blow job?)...He did more than he needed to, in my view. I like both of your sites for various reasons...many of them different. He does his thing and you do yours...So what if he happens to get noticed by the 'mainstream'...Wish him luck and keep pluggin' away...There are too many networks and news outlets and cable stations out there...and Harry can't be the film geek for all of them! Get your own gig, man...COMPETE! You can't win unless you play the game. This perpetuation on your part...and Harry's I must add...does nothing but make you both seem like prissy prima-donnas (no I don't know if I spelled that right and frankly my dear...I don't give a damn!) Patrick, voicing your displeasure once, even twice is voicing a complaint...but the continous sniping and comments on the subject can be construed as 1) nagging, or 2) whinning. You have made your point. Move on...both of you. As I stated in my very first post here...mistakes and wrongs were made with this particular incident. I can't comment on the past...but since both of you made this thing public...I will state again for the record that A) Patrick was wrong for trying to organize a 'lynch mob' and B) Harry was wrong for posting letter and the addresses. THIS IN NO WAY takes away from your position Patrick...but it does, however, make you look like James Spader's character in 'Wolf'. Harry was just defending his 'turf'...a normal reaction, but one that seemed born of adolescent retaliation rather than a well thought out adult response (which, BTW, the post from Harry above is). So like I agreed with Kiksdad yesterday...You guys should ORGANIZE A FRIGGIN' SUMMIT and hash this out if you really are serious about it...Trying to form a gang to beat up one guy is just cowardice, in my humble opinion. Then again, if you are wanting to treat this whole thing like a business...then stop your beyotchin. You think Bill Gates was "Mr. Nice Guy" as he was building his empire? I doubt it...and speaking of My. Gates, you see what is happening to him, don't you? I rest my case on that point. So please PATRICK, HARRY, NICK and any other webmaster/movie fan site/film scoopers...pretty please, with sugar on top...get back to the friggin' movie reviews/scoops/discussions...and I'm spent.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:54 p.m. CST

    "I say it, therefore it is so..."

    by marsyas

    You say that these incidents can't possibly be due solely to thoughtlessness, but you provide no evidence to that effect. Every one of your *specific* complaints has been explained adequately by Harry. I have yet to see any incident which is clearly a *deliberate* attempt to downplay the role of any other site. On the contrary, for all the time I've been reading AICN, I never came away from any story with anything but the utmost respect for its fellow sites -- not until *this* story, but that's your own fault.

  • June 7, 2000, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Opps! My bad...

    by Shadowstar

    All...excuse the double post...and the fact that I meant to state "OH FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD.." and mispelled the "OH"...There is no spell check on this friggin' sue me....and I am spent, again.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Where are all these "others"?

    by wash

    If there's so many "others", then were the hell are they? Seems like a whole lot of whining, Chant. You really need to get over it.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:04 p.m. CST


    by Freematt

    Please, now that a responce has been made, and things are beginning to clear up, take this discussion with Harry Knowles to a private forum. Understand that talkbackers will have their say, whether you are here to respond to them or not. Continuing this here will have no positive effect whatsoever, for either CA or AICN. Your comments have been heard, settle them in private, please. -Matt

  • June 7, 2000, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Getting sympathy is NOT 100% "business."

    by The Crystal Lich

    If all this "ethics" stuff is BORING... if none of this should be PUBLIC... if these things should remain 100% BUSINESS... WHY DID YOU EVER POST THE ORIGINAL LETTER IN THE FIRST PLACE? If you didn't want this made public and you didn't want the sympathy of the Talkbackers, then no one on this site should have seen that letter OR the email addresses that accompanied it. And THAT, in our humble opinion, was the most unforgivable offense of all.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Bottom Line Time

    by calgon2000

    Let's bottom line this, shall we? While AICN is not "the only game in town", it is the market leader. Is this "Variety" or "Hollywood Reporter"? No. It's a fanzine with some pretty invovled infrastructure, a network of rabid contributors, and a well-known figurehead with increasingly national cred. If they wanna crab about "impartiality", maybe they've never been on a press junket for a major movie? How "ethical" is that process?? There are "little chirpers" out there who are big time jealous. Mistakes were made, Harry fessed up, and that should be that. But Harry's been on Kilborne, so this is national security level stuff now..

  • Patrick: It sounds to me that you simply want Harry to show more respect for sources and collegues. Harry: It sounds to me like you feel as though you shouldn't be bullied into changing anything since you feel you've done nothing wrong. How about this?: Harry acknowledges the fact that people (other webmasters) have been HURT in the past by the manner in which stories have been posted (incontrovertable), regardless of his intentions. In such a circumstance, it would be reasonable that anyone would be sorry, therefore Harry APOLOGIZES (a blanket apology, and the acknowledgment that a problem exists). Furthermore, in the future, he and his cohorts will make a SINCERE EFFORT try to be more sensitive. THIS WILL NOT BREAK ANYBODY'S BACK! In turn, Patrick et. al. would agree to make the LEAP OF FAITH that this incident would be make a difference over any past agreements, and agree to TRUST Harry that furure incidents will be kept to a minimum. (Man, am I dreaming or what?) I'm sure these kinds of squabbles are not what anybody got into this business for. Hpefully we can see a resolution to this debacle soon.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by Spike Jonze


  • June 7, 2000, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I can see why X-P.A. put "journalist" in quotes

    by uh_Clem

    I wasn't going to post in this thing, as the issues at hand aren't why I visit any of these sites. I have my opinions on it, but I'm not sharing my "side" in the argument. As someone who's been in the publishing business for quite a while, in many capacities and levels of responsibility, I feel I have to point out serious missteps in X-P.A.'s argument and advice as far as some parallels he draws. I may jump about, bear with me, please. Yes, breaking a story is paramount, and scooping the competition is key for success. Stories are not shared with the the competition, nor are leads or sources. This is sound business practice. BUT there is a very legal, not to mention sound ethical, requirement to fully cite references and authors of previously published material. To do otherwise is called plagiarism. Associated Press stories are not printed in the Washington Post anonymously, or with a staff writer's byline, or treated as a "source," or rewritten without the Post's own staff following the story up personally. Quotes are FURIOUSLY proofread for accuracy, and any alterations for clarity, contextual grammar, or page space are denoted with square brackets [] and ellipses. NEVER for editorial position. That judgment is reserved for content, not information. The accusations that seem to be leveled appear to take the position that posting a story on the Internet on a professionally (profit-earning) maintained website, no matter what the author's own source is, is parallel to "publication." Unfortunately on the Internet this occurs at lightspeed, and can be appropriated just as quickly. As for shared information, mainstream colleagues are not above tipping each other that their paper is running with a breaking story the next morning, even if they won't share their source and leave their competitor to their own legwork; the assumption is the favor will be returned in kind. These are called information networks, professional contacts, and old-fashioned co-back-scratching, all vital and all sound business practice. *** I am not a webmaster nor a lawyer, and have no idea how any of this may if at all directly apply to the issues brought up here. I'll leave that up to everyone else. And I'm not supporting Sauriol OR Knowles with this post, though it may appear to read otherwise by restating the former's allegations while not defending the latter. I'm too ignorant of all the facts, and don't feel like doing the research. But I felt that someone else with professional experience in the print medium should counter X-P.A.'s misrepresentation, a ridiculous throwback to the cutthroat practices of Hearst, as well as the issues at hand. *** But what do I know, maybe he's talking televison, another medium I'm ignorant of and in which for all I know no ethics may apply. In which case Harry can soon look forward to meeting X-P.A.'s ruthless mindset in a "professional" capacity. Fair warning.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:45 p.m. CST

    Patrick, It turns out to be a pretty flimsy straw after all.

    by BatTat

    The "straw that broke the camel's back" as you put it - the Jimmy Smits scoop that you ballyhooed so loudly - is currently being refuted on IMDB. I am attaching the text below. And can we expect a public hissy fit from you regarding your treatment on IMDB? I mean, they didn't post a link to your site, either. Just the mention that you were wrong. Smits Reps Say He Won't Appear In Star Wars. Representatives of Jimmy Smits have denied a rumor, originally posted on the Coming Attractions Internet site, that the NYPD Blue actor has been cast in Star Wars: Episode 2 and Episode 3.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:49 p.m. CST

    To answer Dog Star and Marsyas' questions:

    by chant

    DS: You say I should stop posting, but am I not allowed to post Talkbacks when people like you and others want proof of my claims or call what I'm saying into question? Shouldn't I be allowed to post in a Talkback where hundreds, if not thousands of people can ask me for my proof and ask questions? I'm just supposed to shut up and keep quiet when Harry chose to include my name in the heading of this very rebuttal? Marsyas: You want proof of the incidents outlined in my editorial. I won't post the email I received from Harry Dad about crediting the Rogue photo because I consider it confidential, but Harry probably has a copy on his database. If he agrees, I'll show it publically. As for my other claims about AICN downplaying our PATRIOT Harry article and then read the rebuttal that "Darklighter" posted in the CHUD forums about this issue. Darklighter and the reporter who attended the PATRIOT showing are one and the same. Again, this is not "whining" (properly spelled, that is). I'm merely answering questions and presenting where you can obtain the facts. Harry, again, the offer's been made: if you're serious about discussing this where it's "100% business", then I think having a panel at San Diego with other webmasters is a good idea. Get someone to moderate, hear the opinions of others, discuss it intelligently and fairly.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Patrick, For God's Sake...

    by Dagny_T

    STOP POSTING ALREADY!!! Look, you've stated your position clearly and repeatedly. Everyone who's going to agree with you already does and you're not going to change anyone else's mind, ok? You're just making yourself look really thin-skinned by feeling the need to address every little jab the famously rude talkbackers throw at you. So shut UP already, for your own sake. And Mr. Beaks, as usual, your posts were the most well-thought out and intelligently written on this board....You must have been a philosophy major before you took to stealing financial data for those dishonest old brothers. :-)

  • June 7, 2000, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Making a name for himself

    by Enax

    Well at least we can take some insight into the personality of the hypocrite Patrick Sauriol out of all of this. Yeah, let's get some more intelligent debate and less name calling from the 4 year olds in front of their keyboards! What a joke. Yes, I've bothered to check out the anti-AICN links and supports you placed on your editorial. David Poland is the only one that seems to have a realistic view and sens of perspective on all of this. If it's not jealousy Patrick, then why are you taking it all so personally? It's about respect and ethics, you say? You are not earning respect with this tantrum, nor are you gaining anything in the big picture. As David Poland says, shows like ET have the real power, and if anyone tries to step on them, they are not going to play fair or be ethical. Wake up, Patrick. Let this go and find another way. I've enjoyed your site over the years, and this is taking the joy out of it. Do a great job and the people will follow.

  • June 7, 2000, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Making a name for himself

    by Enax

    Well at least we can take some insight into the personality of the hypocrite Patrick Sauriol out of all of this. Yeah, let's get some more intelligent debate and less name calling from the 4 year olds in front of their keyboards! What a joke. Yes, I've bothered to check out the anti-AICN links and supports you placed on your editorial. David Poland is the only one that seems to have a realistic view and sens of perspective on all of this. If it's not jealousy Patrick, then why are you taking it all so personally? It's about respect and ethics, you say? You are not earning respect with this tantrum, nor are you gaining anything in the big picture. As David Poland says, shows like ET have the real power, and if anyone tries to step on them, they are not going to play fair or be ethical. Wake up, Patrick. Let this go and find another way. I've enjoyed your site over the years, and this is taking the joy out of it. Do a great job and the people will follow.

  • June 7, 2000, 4 p.m. CST

    Question: Ethics or Rules

    by All Thumbs

    From the talk from the other sites, it sounds like most of them just want basic respect for the work they do. No one says they don't deserve that. From others, like CA, and you may not mean this, it seems like you want a set of RULES rather than ethics. I'll tell ya, I would hate to see a set of rules being made for these sites. They would all start sounding the same and would lose readership. If you all are REALLY set on ethics, well, I'll tell you it's not going to help the situation. Even if you go line for line on your code of ethics, it's still up to each person's interpretation, depending on the situation. Right now, you ARE running under a code of personal ethics and it seems that's where you all collide. Each person has a different set of ethics and sometimes what one person does is unethical in the eyes of another. I think this is where your problem started, and by making up a set of ethics, it's not going to end. Ethics are flexible. If they're not, then they're rules and they get broken and all hell breaks loose. In the end, it's just not fun for the readers anyomre...and that won't be fun for you.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:03 p.m. CST


    by Enax

    Sorry about the double post. Stuff turned all upside down.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Harry, have you considered legal action?

    by pedant

    Specifically, suing Patrick for disparagement? If you feel that his claims are false, and that they are likely to damage AICN's reputation, you may have grounds. It is up to him to prove that his allegations are true, so why not make him do it in a court of law? I know you're too big a man (no pun intended) to resort to such a low blow, and it would probably be bad publicity, but it is an option. But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:06 p.m. CST

    You missed the point...

    by marsyas

    Proof of *intent*.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:11 p.m. CST

    Lay 'em down, smack 'em, yak 'em

    by Tad Spaceghost

  • June 7, 2000, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by Fo

    Respect has been thrown about here, but when has any of these sites shown any respect to the creators of the medium that they claim to love? They just post their gossip, their spoilers, their "insider" information, scoops smuggled out of productions for everyone to consume. Where was respect for the medium when they posted a synopsis of Episode I months before the movie came out? Or how about the respect for the wishes of the creative team for Godzilla when they posted a concept drawing of the creature? All I see is a vulture-like approach to movies, grabbing anything they can and throwing it up on the web for all to see. These sites want respect but if there is an opportunity to post a picture of Anakin Skywalker in action on the net tomorrow, even though Lucasfilm seemingly is filming this movie in secret, well, they'll ignore the creator's wishes and post that thing without thinking twice. Sort of takes away the legitimacy of what they are doing pretty much across the board. Respect is a two-way street.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:17 p.m. CST

    personal e-mail addresses

    by mazinga69

    Those of you complaining about the posting of personal e-mails do not realize how easy they are to find. I work in the legal profession and know of many sites and services that can track down a person's e-mail address. Big deal. We are living in the information age and, good or bad, there truly is no such thing as privacy anymore. Big Brother is watching.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:32 p.m. CST

    See what I mean? Patrick keeps posting. Like there is nothing

    by Shadowstar

    For the record...I do not run any of my posts through a spell checker before I post...So I fat finger stuff a couple of times and my mind races faster than my formerly nicotined stained hands (all credit to Rush Limbaugh) can go...I get my friggin' point sue me! Sniping about not spelling "whining" correctly is just plain petty. I just left CHUD where there was a bunch of posts saying how childish the Talkbackers being just as childish. My post to them was "Let those among you without sin...cast the first stone." I am a friggin' GDI (Good Damn Independent)...I look at all of the sites that have been promninently named in this fracass. I am officially only registered here and CHUD...and only recently to comment on this stuff. If you weren't so obsessed with having the last word...I think you would stop monitoring this site and go and do some work on your own stuff. AND HARRY...since you have gone and done what Patrick punked you into (by this I mean the 'point by point' rebuttal), the best thing you can do at this point is to drop it, at least in this public forum. You guys plan this little summit thing and lock yourselves in a room and don't come out until you can at least show some respect. You don't have to like each other...but you can at least agree to disagree like civialized beings. Patrick, I try to be as even in this as I can. I have agreed that there are 'issues' that need to be addresed...some of which I, and many of the people on these chat boards are not privy to. My biggest gripe is the way you both are handling this. But especially you, Patrick. It has become laughable at this point. Reminds me of those schoolyard arguments that end up being a long bout of "Did too!", "Did not!", "Did too!", "Did not!" With the only thing ending it is the teacher calling everyone in from recess. Well the bell has rung...come back inside and get to work. My repsect for Garth is growing by leaps and bounds...for I have not seen him publically get involved in this disturbance in the Force. His sight (as far as I have seen) is staying clear. Good decision on his part. Maybe he should mediate the summit...or maybe me. But on second thought, I might get to P.O.'d if it turned into a beyothcfest and start doing things to violate my probation....and I'm spent.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Harry should change his ways

    by Doc Daneeka

    The site has a lot going for it, but I don't care how many times he can site bad reviews he's given movies made by people he knows - The fact is, Harry DOESN'T CARE as much as he thinks about journalistic ethics. That Grinch review was an embarrassment. As was the Hollow Man review. These may end up being two great movies, but can we take Harry's word for it? Harry, who was treated like a king by the filmmakers. I'm not saying Harry is dishonest about his feelings toward these movies. Just that he's dishonest about his ability to be corrupted. He must believe that somehow he's stronger and more uncorruptable than most mere mortals, otherwise he'd have to turn down all the cool things filmmakers are throwing at him. Harry is good friends with Richard Rodriguez. Can I ever trust his opinion on a Rodriguez film again? The Faculty was a huge piece of shit. I never heard a peep about that from Harry. If the reputation of Ain't It Cool News means anything to Harry, he better seriously reevaluate the way he goes about covering movies, accepting favors, and writing reviews. And Harry can justify it all he wants, but that Godzilla experience should have been a lesson for him. Instead, he sees it as an isolated experience. Learn from your mistakes Harry, or your site's reputation won't be worth jack.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Re: personal e-mail addresses

    by Kikstad

    Personal phone numbers and home addresses are also relatively easy to find, but I wouldn't want someone to post my telephone number and address on the Internet for all to see.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:49 p.m. CST

    X-PA: crap, Crap, CRAP!!!

    by KingMenthol

    I'm sorry, but I did not log on to the network today to read that someone thinks that AICN needs to change, X-P.A. I read this site because of its frankness, for the articles and resultant talkbacks that contain discourse in the language of the everyman. It's one of the only places in the universe where a 13-year-old can REALLY say what he feels. Granted, it sometimes sounds silly, but that's just fine. This site is not intended to be a journalistic enterprise. Harry's just in denial if he thinks otherwise. This IS a fan site, and were Harry to use your suggestions, the site would change for the worse. I wouldn't enjoy reading AICN if I knew I couldn't come to talkback and say: "Gladiator sucked and Ridley Scott is a fucking hack!" That's the beauty of this site, that to a point I can fucking post whatever I fucking goddamn well please here. If you want it like Variety or Hollywood Reporter, just type in the damn address and hit go. Don't change a good thing.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:50 p.m. CST


    by Kingo Gondo

    Harry, when you and the other internet movie gurus finish your Delcaration of Principles let me have the original copy. Is it going to be written in crayon?

  • June 7, 2000, 4:53 p.m. CST

    I have seen this same thing happen with Mr. Poland and now with

    by JasonDkEldar

    Mr. Sauriol(aka Chant or whichever you wish to be referred to by), I find it amusing that you would say Harry had to earn the respect of his peers. For some reason, you, like Mr. Poland, have decided something in your background has made your site and your activities more elevated and wonderful than others. If you truly believed what you were saying instead of stnading up like some wannabe gangbanger and spouting off the utter nonsense that is your rap, you would know that the big dog on the block does not have to earn anything from those curs he has supplanted or even helped gain a hold on life. If you and your fellow website designers'masters have so very many threatened feelings about his practices, then demand he not allow any stories to link to yours and remove his links to you from his site. You should also all refrain from running a rumor-based story two to three days later on your site from YOUR independent source if he has already reported on it. Would it make your site a little thin on material?? Yes, it would, but at least your journalistic integrity would be preserved. You could also prove where your rumors came from and that their legitimacy was greter than Harry's. You say that would be impossible as they are rumors? Then I answer with this: Until you all graduate from Weekly World New status to at least the People magazine level of journalistic coverage, then please feel free to stop sniping at the National Enquirer of rumor sites.

  • June 7, 2000, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Any site can now have a "talkback" feedback forum

    by Kikstad

    I honestly disagree that the only reason people log on to AICN is because of the "Talk Back" feature. Sites like make it very easy for ANYONE to create easy-to-use FREE message boards (with as much or as little security, restrictions, modifications, etc. as you like or need). Not a plug, just a fact. It's no big deal, and any of Harry's competitors can do it. (I think that's what CHUD uses if I'm not mistaken.) I've been tuning in every day for the occasional cool scoop, to read the columns of Moriarty and El Cosmico whenever they write something, and to see the usually daily change of animation which I think is really cool. Today's SHINING homage is excellent. (And I also dig the AICN poll -- I just wish Harry would update it more frequently. A new question a day would be even better.) So maybe some people come here just to see the fights on Talk Back, but if that's the case, I think it's pretty sad. Because the "fights" are usaully pretty moronic and juvenile to begin with. I personally prefer the more intelligent posts and the truly witty comments that a few Talk Backers have displayed. But if the usual hatefilled profanity-laced ramblings ("That movie sucks", "Mr. T is God," "I'm first", "You're a Lucas asskisser" etc) is what attracts most people here, well, whatever rocks your boat. -- Nick

  • June 7, 2000, 5:19 p.m. CST


    by KingMenthol

    It isn't the talkback alone. The whole nature of the site, the writing, presentation, etc., promote an atmosphere where people can and are encouraged to say what they feel. Personally, I don't read C.A. for reviews, and wouldn't care to engage in a forum there. The way it and DH are presented gives me the impression that a talkback there would be boring. This site, while sometimes foul (oftentimes filthy and funny, i.e. Jerky McJerk or the Warrior), is welcoming to the average Poindexter who wouldn't be able to say to Zack Morris at school that he thought Center Stage was a good movie or that MI2 was shit. It's the whole package, mate. And when I'm doing nothing but picking my butt at work, yes, nasty, hatefilled talkback does float my boat.

  • June 7, 2000, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Why are my posts being deleted?

    by Berserker's Back

    Just wondering. I don't think it's a coincidence that they disagreed with the general opinion of the board's Blackshirts.

  • June 7, 2000, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Re: Darth Gundam

    by DarthGundam

    One of the most prominent figures in Hollywood? Maybe in the food court! If you want to look at prominent people in Hollywood, look at the directors: Lucas, Besson, Speilberg, Howard, Scott, Woo, etc. Don't look at the people who *think* they are prominent. Media organizations have proved without a doubt that they are sleezy, if they put Knowles in a magazine, its because they need to do a full page spread - - just to fit him in it :) Personally, people who speak like Knowles, appear like Knowles, and use Knowles' vocabulary are on and the same. Definitely not in the top of Hollywood. But food chain, yes. Heck, if I was part of a group of cattle, I would stampede if I even heard Knowles name, just from the fear of being eaten alive.

  • But, I'll probably be labeled as being bitter. Tweedy-deedy-doo. Anyhoo, changing the wording of a document in ANY form (especially in favor of the accused) is serious enough to warrant more than a two sentence response.

  • June 7, 2000, 6:01 p.m. CST

    One of many contradictions in Harry's response

    by Jobriga2

    Harry says that AICN reserves the right "to cut down on unwanted babbling about insignificant personal details". Yet in the SAME EDITORIAL, he writes that "my philosophy [is] that film review doesn't begin and end with the opening and ending titles. There is more to it. What we do and who we are affects the review". So basically what Harry means is, your personality and opinion on this site matters, as long as your last name is Knowles. How many times have we had to wade through ten paragraphs about Harry's experiences on the way to the theater just so we can read one sentence about the actual movie? But if the review comes from CA, CHUD, Dark Horizons, or any other outside source, SNIP SNIP! AICN removes the "insignificant personal details," like who wrote the review and where they're coming from. Sorry Harry, but this "response" only digs your hole a bit deeper.

  • June 7, 2000, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Darth Vader is Luke's Father??? Holy sh*t.

    by chromosomecowboy

    WTF Harry? You had to go and ruin Empire Strikes Back for me. I was thisclose to seeing it. Man. Where was the spoiler alert before that shocker????? Christ Harry, you gotta consider some of the folks that have been locked inside of basements for the past twenty years, like me. I mean, I get a taste for freedom and now this. Ruined. And i was so close to getting into Star Wars.... PS: Good way to provide a counterpoint, Harry. This time, no sarcasm.

  • June 7, 2000, 6:10 p.m. CST

    No, Patrick. You aren't supposed to shut up...

    by Freematt

    However, you can take it out of the public eye. As far as the public posting is concerned, you should be done. You posted your challenge to AICN. Harry posted his rebuttal. You'll notice he only responded to your points, he did not return fire. He also suggested openning lines of communication to address the problems you saw. So take that hint, and communicate with him. As far as the talkbackers are concerned, they will not be satisfied by responces. They will *always* find points to rebuke, no matter how small, just to argue. It's called "trolling," and the crew here have made an art of it. It's actually quite fun to read... but you must never respond, unless you want a flamewar on your hands! That's why they do it!! Now, there are some people who do have points you want to constructively respond to. Everyone's talkback ID is related to an email address. May I suggest you use that email (The address has to have been real at one point, to get the password for this forum.) This way you can answer their questions, and not attract more trolls (no matter how much they are loved here.) This avoids the deadly circle from beginning. Thank you for reading. -Matt

  • June 7, 2000, 6:11 p.m. CST

    If'n ya can't take the heat...

    by Kent Allard

    This whole controversy has been blown way out of proportion, methinks. Like any business, AICN is trying to be successful -- and to do that in today's America, you have to play dirty sometimes to get ahead. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but it IS the way businesses are run. Someone brought up Bill think Billy Boy made nice & played fair with everyone? Not a chance. That's why he got to the top. Not nice, but it's the way it goes. (Very similar to the movie biz, btw...) Sure, in a perfect world Harry should have more integrity, but nice guys finish last more often than not. Patrick DOES have some valid points, but he must realize that he's not going to force Harry to change. Harry, like it or not, is THE most famous internet movie site guy & will remain there until he does something to hamstring himself. On that note, Father Geek seems to be the major cause of nearly all the faux pas (pass? pas's?) that appear on this site. I know he's your Dad & everything, Harry, but maybe the site is best left in Moriarty's hands when you're away. So, Patrick, I'm sorry that Harry has "wronged" you, but you will not get any kind of retraction or restitution from him unless Harry desires it. He's the current King of the Hill & the only thing you can do is try to knock him off. That's capitalism, m'lad. As for journalistic ethics, this site operates (as someone mentioned) off of items that someone betrayed a trust to offer up. It's much more of an underground newsletter than a slick fan magazine and should remain so. For all the talk about Harry being a shill for the studios, I still believe he gives his honest opinion about movies more often than not. (Finally, I must be one of the fortunate few -- either because of me being on an Apple or being behind a firewall -- that's NOT getting these American Pie ads. I thank my lucky stars. I still remember with horror that swinging cat from Love Stinks...) Kent Allard signing off -- STILL knowing what evil lurks in the hearts of men!

  • June 7, 2000, 6:11 p.m. CST

    I've been reading other forums on this...

    by KingMenthol

    And it's getting out of hand. The CHUD board is no different than this one, except that amongst a few intelligent comments it's become an AICN/Harry/Talkback bashing session. There are ZERO differences between the readers of the sites, and most of us could care less about who's scoop was who's. Yes, Father Geek mangled some words. Who cares? The important issue of this WHOLE GODDAMN DEBATE is this: Is Jimmy Smits in or is he not in Star Wars Episode 2? Do readers care where they got the news? To put a final point on it, Harry and Patrick should've discussed this between themselves. It's not going to help either party. It might hurt Patrick, though. Look what happened to Jedinet and Their readership tanked while TFN is still strong and kicking with scoops, news, and goodies. Watch out, Patrick. Whiners get bitch-slapped sometimes.

  • June 7, 2000, 7:31 p.m. CST

    Harry, you all goofed

    by Republicanus

    They guy has a bunch of excellent points, Harry. You DID post people's email addresses without their knowledge or permission. That is Goof # 1. You have taken this WAY too far, as well. Goof #2 And I have had to REALLY dig to find your mea culpa. So far no mea maxima culpa... but I'm still looking. Hey, man. Own up to it. Y'all made some mistakes. Just acknowledge that you goofed, OR that you weren't paying much attention at the time, and just apologize. Big deal. Be a man. As for your cheering section, don't pay too much attention to them. Hell, they'll always chime in with "Damn, you're right Harry, yep yep yep" no matter what. And pay just as little attention to those people who call you names that'd make a sailor blush. No matter what, remember, everyone has some dumbass who hates them. But I do hope you re-read CA's quite well written article, and realize that no matter how YOU think you handled it, this pissing contest is just plain distracting. The main fact is, Harry, you goofed up. So be a man and own up to it. Then stuff can get normal again. Remember my guide to behavior: WWTDD: What Would The Duke Do? See ya, Lurker for years, Republicanus Tyrannus

  • June 7, 2000, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Trying to get a little sympathy

    by Toll Booth Willy

  • June 7, 2000, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Trying to get a little sympathy?

    by Toll Booth Willy

    OK, Harry's just using his grandmother's death to get extra sympathy. What a prick. I mean, he could at least print the list in its entirety, or explain why he feels the need to only show select part's of Patrick's letter. Come on, he won't even talk about why he had to print the full mailing list Sunday. Is it just me, or does Harry seem like the stereotyped fat, bearded comic-book store guy who has nothing better to do than argue over meaningless trivia points and movie tips, all the while purposely being rude and ignorant to the guys who actually have lives, and are good at what they do? (Patrick=knows what he's talking about, looked like he didn't weigh as much as a small whale, if I remember. Harry= separated at birth from that guy on The Simpsons.)

  • June 7, 2000, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Nothing but the Facts

    by Stewman

    I'm certainly grateful for these sites being made available by hard working people, but I really do not have any allegiance to either one. Or do you,..Yahoo?

  • June 7, 2000, 9:15 p.m. CST

    Random thoughts...

    by Rand Canuck

    Well, having visited CA just now (for the first time, in fact--- at least they're getting some publicity from this), I have actually read the actual concerns Patrick expressed. I can't believe that either Harry or Patrick is totally in the wrong here. Patrick raises some valid points which none of us can refute or support, since we don't run AICN. For example, I have no idea how AICN has handled its receipt and posting of stories from various contributors, and neither do any of you. If these have been mishandled at all, I'm willing to give AICN the benefit of the doubt and presume that it's been out of carelessness rather than evil intent. Still, carelessness is not an excuse, and it's something to be addressed. As far as "professional journalism ethics" goes, I find this amusing since I see AICN as totally a fan site, and not a traditional news outlet. I enjoy the fannish quality of the reviews, stories, and story intros. THAT is why I come to AICN every day. "Objectivity" is not something I even want to associate with AICN. This is Harry's site, with Harry's biases. When I come to AICN,it's like visiting with an old buddy. If I want dry news reporting, or studio hype, there are other places for that. Oh, and I like the TalkBacks, and that American Pie ad is driving me a little crazy.

  • June 7, 2000, 10:16 p.m. CST

    More thoughts...

    by Rand Canuck

    Man, I've just been browsing through some of the other movie sites, some of which I'd never heard of. It was quite an eye-opener. There is a lot of bad blood out there against AICN. It really makes you think. I still like AICN's personal, fannish approach, but some of these other sites are quite refreshing in their professionalism--- from page layout to spelling. I'll still look in on AICN, but these other sites will now be on my daily (or weekly) browsing list.

  • June 7, 2000, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Oh brother.... sigh...

    by Spell Checker

    You know, all of this makes me think, very simply, that there are too many people taking themselves and their sites ENTIRELY too seriously... 'Code of ethics'?! 'Summit meeting'?! Don't make me laugh! Do you all actually think you're SERIOUS JOURNALISTS or something? Jesus Christ, all these sites are UNREGULATED INTERNET RUMOR MILLS, plain and simple! I take NOTHING I read here seriously, no matter WHO wrote it! I don't care if it's from Harry or Moriarty or RoboGeek or Roger Ebert!! (And that goes for the so-called 'reviews' we find here, too!) So why do I come here, then? FOR FUN FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! I enjoy a good rumor or a bad review as much as anyone! I appreciate it for WHAT IT IS! I think about 90% of the people who read these sites, and about 100% of the people who maintain them, need to simply RELAX!

  • June 7, 2000, 11:01 p.m. CST

    AICN is SHOW BUSINESS. Look at the word for a second.

    by Tall_Boy

    I read almost all of the movie websites on the 'net, IGN, Dark Horizons, Corona, Cinescape The, etc. etc., but AICN is my main "hit" for info. Why? Because of the all the net sites, some which do have cooler scoops, or a more "professional" approach to the matirel, AICN has the most "pop" of all of them. This site as a definate personality. I enjoy how Harry's personal opinion flips more then an omlet. I enjoy Moriarty's wacky schemes to take over the world. Its really not all that dry recoletion of facts. It is a reflection of its creator, and that works its way on down to the other people who work the site. The reason that ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY or EBERT AT THE MOVIES singles out AICN is because of its personality and its pop. Movies are funadentally about entertainment at this is what the site is at its core, entertainment about entertainment. That's the SHOW part of it. Now the BUSINESS aspect of it. From all indications from several other sites, and looking at this one, Harry et. all are definately guilty of poor sourcing and crediting other sites. (even that SPIDER-MAN logo scoop made it seem like they had snuck into a top secret Sony meeting when really it had originated from another source). They do, and with intent, try to set thier site up, when comparing it with others, as THE definate source for inside movie news. . .AND WHY THE HELL NOT?! Its called Looking out for #1. This is a BUSINESS underneath all the fun, at it can be as cut-throat as any. Do you think Bill Gates made billions of dollars by being a nice guy? (just ignore the fact that he's being split up right now). But anyway, why AICN's journaistic approach may be pretty shady and somewhat ill-concieved, overall this site combines the entertaining facts about movies with an entertaining presentation. It has a personality. manipulative and explotive as it may be. ie Harry's attention getting explotive comment about the death of a loved one, a complete non-sequitor, just to make us feel sorry for him. But, all of the good and the bad creates what makes it through. It jouralistic cred is probably pretty nasty, but what matters in the end, is who gets the scoop to the public first. Combining both to make you a part of SHOW BUSINESS. I like Corona (hey, its Canadian, I gotta) but AICN has the pop, and that's why it gets the hits

  • June 7, 2000, 11:27 p.m. CST


    by Shadowstar

    Points have been made. Give it a rest for Zeus' sake! All I wanna hear is that you guys met, had a discussion or a fist fight...did the issue get resolve or who the hell got the crap beat out of them. Otherwise, I just want to see the movie reviews/rumors/scoops. Is that so much to ask? ...and I'm spent, again.

  • June 7, 2000, 11:32 p.m. CST

    It's pretty pointless to post NOW,but if it's any consolation Ha

    by user id indeed!

    ...and you're still reading this TalkBack,if Coming Attractions had a TalkBack,and Patty O'Alienation over there personally gave $20 and a chance to dunk him in a tank of sulfuric acid to everyone who posted there,I'd grab the $20,dunk his whiny ol' head in the acid,and come right back over here.You have this site and you love it because you love the moviegoing experience.You live for the dimming lights,the spreading curtain,the sudden booming of the snappy theater jingles,the trailers,the feature,the ending,the walking out with a smile on your face.And I do,too.And other people here do,too.Which is why you'll always be #1,and you'll always have support from us.

  • June 8, 2000, 1:32 a.m. CST

    Long Live Harry and his words.

    by Jedi 7

    This is why I love your site.You know what you are talking about when you talk about movies, you give credit where credit is due and I know you are honest and a respectful person. Long live Harry and AICN the best place for movie info around..

  • June 8, 2000, 1:34 a.m. CST

    Long Live Harry and his words.

    by Jedi 7

    This is why I love your site.You know what you are talking about when you talk about movies, you give credit where credit is due and I know you are honest and a respectful person. Long live Harry and AICN the best place for movie info around..

  • June 8, 2000, 1:39 a.m. CST

    Long Live Harry and his words.

    by Jedi 7

    This is why I love your site.You know what you are talking about when you talk about movies, you give credit where credit is due and I know you are honest and a respectful person. Long live Harry and AICN the best place for movie info around..

  • June 8, 2000, 1:43 a.m. CST

    Long Live Harry!

    by Jedi 7

    Just continue doing your job Harry and I love your site for its humor as well as its honesty and knowlege of film.Long live Harry and AICN.

  • June 8, 2000, 1:44 a.m. CST

    Long Live Harry!

    by Jedi 7

    Just continue doing your job Harry and I love your site for its humor as well as its honesty and knowlege of film.Long live Harry and AICN.

  • June 8, 2000, 2:39 a.m. CST

    hey, you guys are funny!

    by Loreweaver

    Harry, can you send me a copy of all user IDs? these people come up with crazy weird names! been laughing my ass off with the usual suspects! and to the Theme, buh huh huh!! AICN rules!

  • June 8, 2000, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Interview with Patrick is ONLINE

    by Tolon-Ras

    If you want to hear some refreshingly honest opinions about all this, just take a listen to the interview GunnLace has done with Patrick of Coming Attractions. If the above link does not show up, just go to and hit up the Interview department.

  • June 8, 2000, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Refuting uh_Clem, just because ... excuse the length

    by X-P.A.

    To uh_Clem: Ouch. Tongue-lashing taken and processed. That hurt (the truth often does). First, I agree with your post wholeheartedly. Your examples are all true. To wit, I have spent many an hour tracking down a township trustee to make sure I understood a particular remark. And I would never, ever forget to cite a source. If I did, I

  • June 8, 2000, 3:39 p.m. CST


    by Megaladon

    I must say that I have found Harry increasingly annoying as of late. For instance, I have always hated when he begs for gifts on the site, but put up with it because of the movie scoops and articles. However, he does seem to be getting a little too cozy with these filmmakers, and I think it's affecting his judgment. John Carpenters new movie could be (and probably will be) a pile of crap, but the odds that Harry would give it a negative review are about the same as the odds of getting struck by lightening. Also, his recent glowing review of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace left a really bad taste in my mouth. This was one of the worst films of the last ten years (yes, I'm including Biodome in that analysis), with the most annoying character ever put on film in it (I don't really need to say his name, do I?). The fact that Harry would go out of his way to praise this film, and call that particular character the best one in the movie, shows that Harry has lost all sense of reality. I think I'll try to find another film site that doesn't have its lips planted firmly on the ass of these filmmakers.

  • June 8, 2000, 4:53 p.m. CST

    If you hated the CHUD design

    by chud

    Then take a look now. The long awaited redesign aired today and hopefully those who hated the site for its appearance will now find something else to hate it for. -Nick ( and

  • June 8, 2000, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Wow, Harry...

    by Hildago

    I've just spent an hour or so reading the diatribes on all the movie news sites. I think they're taking it much too seriously. What I've always liked about your site is that it seems true to its core nerdiness. It's a fan site. Coming Attractions, et al. look like businesses, and now I think we're beginning to see that they think of themselves as Businesses, with a capital B, like the mafia. I mean, Christ. What I also got from reading these very self-righteous editorials is that a lot of people seem to have been waiting in the shadows for a long time, and have just now come out to get their licks in while they think you're down. Well, don't be down, keep doing what you're doing. AICN is better in its niche than theirs are, so don't forget that this basically boils down to jealousy and bitterness. Anyway, love your site, Harry, and it will take a much better argument than sorry old Patrick's or smug old David Poland's to get me to leave.

  • June 8, 2000, 9:01 p.m. CST

    Quesytion is...

    by KaijuKiller

    would you guys care if say someone like ET or EW published an article from Harry's site but didn't give him credit? I would you and Harry would be mad as hell.

  • June 9, 2000, 7:03 a.m. CST

    uh_Clem has asked me to post this ...

    by X-P.A.

    Before I posted my last, long, tedious to read post, I sent it off to Clem so he

  • June 9, 2000, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Thanks, X-P.A. --and check this out!

    by uh_Clem

    If you're still about, that is. Anyway, this is the first I ever heard about the "Darth Kimball" gag, but holy crow is it hilarious! I bring it up here, as on the final page the author has some pretty poignant and well-written things to say that mirror this whole biz here. This guy's got it out for BOTH Knowles AND Sauriol in baaaaad way. The joke itself is priceless!