Is an AICN embargo too out of the question?

I guess I'll have to see it for free somehow. Good thing I have lots of friends who work in movie theaters at various levels, and I can totally skip having to pay Fox for their movie this time around. I won't pirate it; That would be immoral. I'll simply use someone's free movie privileges at their cineplex to sidestep the whole issue. You get no money from me on this one, 20th Century Fox. Fuck you. I'll pay to see this film when you do the right thing and give the guy his job back.

Could someone please let me know at what page number Monsieur Swann, while at dinner with Baron Charlus, inhales the delicate fragrance rising from the inner lining of Charlus' special GOTTA-TAKE-A-SHIT MASK and is reminded of the youthful hawthornes in Combray and the bittersweet impossibilities of true love? I have looked everywhere and cannot find this information.

Thanks in advance!!!

you have to admit, do you really think the Fox execs would have tracked him down if his review had been even neutral? I suppose if he had given away spoilers, maybe. but he didn't. he just didn't like the film. and the embargo bullshit was just a way of punishing him, while still protecting their legal culpability.

no matter how you look at it, it's shitty. this isn't Nedry in Jurasic Park selling trade secrets for millions. it's a projectionist sending in a review to a site he likes, for NO money, just to be part of the process of getting information about a film out there.

Memflix, if you live in LA and can work a camera, holler at me. also, if you speak Spanish, that'll help, got some stuff going down in Mexico July/August. good money, all travel paid for, and they still need one more cameraman.

MEMflix is in MEMphis which is in TN which is a right to work state, as I pointed out in the other thread, he has a good case for unemployment but that is about it.

If he could prove that Fox placed a call saying 'fire him or we pull every one of our films from you chain', or some such threat, he might, with a good lawyer, be able to go after FOX.

Or maybe if you could convince an entertainment journalist to fill some inches on a slow day, the whole 'fired for having an opinion' angle might get some play. Get Memflix some publicity, maybe he can get a paying movie critic gig, which is I am sure his real dream anyway...

Cause he cant review movies from screeners anymore. Memflix gotta eat!

Seriously dude, that sucks we owe you for taking a hit for the team, even though i didnt care what your review said cause i was goonna wtach the movie anyways.

so anyways... did you have some confidentaility agreement thingy in place?

I wasn't seeing this film anyway, but now, with all this foolish bullshit, there's no way. Weak sauce.

Seeing as how the management told him flat out why he was being fired, for expressing his opinion about the movie, this firing is absolutely actionable. The nice thing about the Constitution is that it trumps any and all State laws. Plus, management has already set (possibly legal) precedent in this case by not warning and/or firing him for previous reviews. Now go get rich Memflix, or at least get your job back.

*I said morons with the utmost respect for my fellow TBers, especially anchorite, just get your heads outta yer asses

But lost.rules has every right to say X3 and FF are shit because they where made to make money and no other reason. It is exploitation of an audience and an exploitation of a beloved artform.

No matter what you thought of these movies you cannot deny they where made with no care or respect what-so-ever.

They where made by suits.

Even if there were no instructions to not disclose what he'd seen during these screenings, I firmly believe on moral and ethical grounds that Memflix violated Fox's trust. These films cost a fortune, and a company has every right to safeguard its investment. People keep bringing up the First Amendment. This is not a constitutional matter. Memflix put his employers at risk and in most cases his employer would have a clear right to terminate him. But they also have an obligation to reprimand him and move forward because, if this is the truth, they did not warn him about nondisclosure.

And yes, while Fox was within their rights to take aggressive action, they also behaved like a Massive Evil Corporation for using the equivalent of an atom bomb to kill a fly. If they're actually paying people for positive reviews, they could at least extend the courtesy to Memflix to help him keep his job or find a new one. They overreacted.

They suck. The theater management sucks. And while I sympathize with Memflix, he should not be writing reviews if he is screening films for test audiences for the studios. That is clearly a no-no, regardless whether you've been warned.

I wouldn't say it is a fair review, I'm sure if I didn't know anything about FF then I could enjoy it for a bit of popcorn fun aswell.

He got paid a lot of money for them 2 years, most people would leave their standards at the door for a few million.

He doesn't work for FOX!

If I go into a respected cinema/video shop/book shop and ask the staff if a film/book is any good I expect them to tell me. Not say 'oh I work in a cinema, I must say all the films are good.'

thems the rules and if he signed his name on that dotted line, then he has no leg to stand on.

from what it sounds like, it seems like this movie is going to rock. (big purple cloud aside)

FOX are the assholes here.

and

Total Film

Total film are sometimes slightly over positive and Empire are sometimes slightly too critical.

Read both and get the perfect perspective of how well a film works.

This isn't grammar school. This is big business. Fox has every right to protect its investments. But they also should hunt down all the other people who have violated their embargo. As Mori wrote, if this is truly about an embargo, then Fox must mow down all the squealers. Otherwise, go to hell, Fox, for bringing the weight of your company down on the neck of one individual who happened to hate your film.

But then there's the issue of actually posting these reviews in the first place, and I think it's flat-out wrong for Harry to run this site for spies. In effect, he's aiding and abetting corporate espionage. For every one of you who sees a test screening and signs a nondisclosure doc and then runs home to write a review with the hope Harry puts it up, shame on you. Have you no honor? This is why the world sucks. People are liars and two-faced shits.

The cinema and FOX both know that anyone with half a brain knows this film is shit and they know they will still make money.

Memflix telling us lot (who already new it was going to blow) is NOT going to hurt their property.

In fact, I don't know about any of you but i always feel more inclined to go to a film if I hear it is really really shit than if I hear it is just very average.

I couldn't wait to see Batman and Robin when I read the review wheras Ghost Rider I can't be arsed with cuz all I heard was that it is very bland.

I never said he shouldn't have lost his job, i said the cinema where fair in that they where only protecting their business.

It is FOX who are the assholes, they tried to save face over a bad film by attacking one little guy and it has just made them look worse.

The point of this site is that when a film is bad studios try and keep the fact underwraps till it comes out so it won't efect their takings.

If a film is good and someone leaks a review then everyone is happy.

If a film is bad and the studio leave press screenings till the last posible moment and someone gets in a review proving this fact then it is a positive thing for us film fans.

James Marsters or Aaron Eckart as Hal Jordan?

Omar Epps or "that guys from Heroes?... which makes me wonder if you all meant Leonard Roberts (DL) or Jimmy Jean-Louis (Haitian) as Jon Stewart. Personally I like the Haitian.

Ricky Ulman as Kyle Raynor?... I don't think anyone mentioned anybody else.

Ron Pearlman as Kilowog. I mean it if you can think of anyone better you let me know.

Now we talked a lot about who would play Guy Gardner and I think people threw out names like Matt Damon which led us to an Oceans 11 GL movie which you all know would have sucked, but I think ultimately the best choice would be Alan Tyduk.

Any thoughts now that this topic has already been beaten to death?

Spies are only bad if your film is bad and you are trying to cover up this fact.

This site was built on 2 films:

Titanic: everyone thought it was going to stink, Harry saw it early said it was great and some might say secured the early word fortunes of the film.

Batman and Robin: was hidden away till the last moment, Harry got in a very early review and made somwhat of a dent in a film that is so bad people should have been shot over it.

I really can't wait till 2010 or maybe 2011 when we all use space-dollars and argue about films on the space-internet on our space-computers.

I don't think Fox was trying to save face as much as they (or moreso the theater owners)were trying to tell employees that breach of trust is untolerated.

I suggested Taye Diggs for Jon Stewart and Cole Hauser for Guy Gardner which is the best idea ever and personally, I think I should be a casting agent, but that's just me.

This site only posts objective views of info they get from film sets. Us talkbackers do the negative work there.

FOX had finished FF:ROTSS and when someone saw it a week before anyone else and said what it was like they flipped.

We are talking about someone talking about a finished film, that shouldn't be a problem unless they have something to be ashamed of.

I dunno, I like the idea of Eckhart as Hal. Don't get me wrong I like Marsden, but he was Cyclops and that other guy in Superman. I just don't think he needs another superhero movie. Though the same could be said for Eckhart as well now that he's Harvey Dent.

Sorry to say about Hauser, but there is just something that bothers me about him. I don't think he'd work... maybe it's just me.

You're welcome to take him home and lock him in a closet though.

Even the smallest films require thousands and that cannot be escaped from.

Even the most artistic director has to be aware that he needs to keep someone in a suit happy to a degree.

But some directors just let the man in the suit fuck them up the arse.

The motion picture itself is a very interesting and cagey beast, and we can argue forever about the medium and its nature, but I would suggest we drop the illusion that what Universal does is the same as what Errol Morris does. So when I say that studio films are commercial products, how is that inaccurate? It doesn't mean that some are not amazing, it's a simple statement of fact. They produce those films to make a profit. They turn them out into the marketplace to generate revenue. In that sense, they are no different from Van Gogh. He traded paintings for rent and food, and he was a great great artist. But he didn't have 300 people toiling on his canvas for 18 months.

I think Tyduk would be better... maybe.

Warhol's a good example in the fine art world. Or Dale Chihuly. Most of what people see as Chihuly's work is created by others, but it's his vision that drives the process. We shouldn't get hung up on semantics.

In sum...Fox = Teh Suckage. Memflix = Best regards, and keep writing. AICN = NEED.MORE.ROTH! Flames on Optimus = Flames on Optimus.

Afterall, anyone could say the same thing about Transformers or Die Hard or any movie that's coming out and people might buy it.

This abstract from Wiki spells it out clearly for me:

Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of 'art' is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

An artwork is normally assessed in quality by the amount of stimulation it brings about. The impact it has on people, the number of people that can relate to it, the degree of their appreciation, and the effect or influence it has or has had in the past, all accumulate to the 'degree of art.' Most artworks that are widely considered to be 'masterpieces' possess these attributes.

"Something is not generally considered 'art' when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so. However, some contemporary art challenges this idea.

"As such, something can be deemed art in totality, or as an element of some object. For example, a painting may be a pure art, while a chair, though designed to be sat in, may include artistic elements. Art that has less functional value or intention may be referred to as fine art, while objects of artistic merit which serve a functional purpose may be referred to as craft. Paradoxically, an object may be characterized by the intentions (or lack thereof) of its creator, regardless of its apparent purpose; a cup (which ostensibly can be used as a container) may be considered art if intended solely as an ornament, while a painting may be deemed craft if mass-produced."

I'm not putting down filmmaking, nor am I belittling films. Movies are one of the most amazing and effective amalgams of craft and technology ever established. It's why I love the medium.

If you worked at Barnes & Noble, and happened upon an opened case of the 7th "Harry Potter" book a few weeks before it was out, and then wrote a spoiler-filled review- THAT would be a little closer to the situation. And I ASSURE YOU THAT B&N would CAN YOUR ASS. Why? Because if not, they would risk losing distribution for Scholastic (Scholastic does Potter, right?) which could cost them MILLIONS. The distinction is that this is property that is not released to mass-market yet. I can't show any production art I've done for films or games that haven't been released. Not only that, but alot of times I can't show it AFTER it's released, as an NDA will sometimes stipulate.

She needs to get the stripper tats removed, though.

so are you a fan of the DOCTOR? I'm assuming you know WHO, I'm talking about. I love the show, and can't wait for the current series to begin airing in the states, I believe July 6th, so I don't have that long to wait.

This show is the most brilliant thing on TV.

Oh and would kick Ms. Fox out of bed, mostly because when I look at here I feel like I might get something from her.

Something dirty.

If studios tried this they wouldn't be as much at risk if one failed.

He said:

'I've no fuckin idea mate, i'm from Liverpool.'

It was like being in LOST.

I think DKR would be a perfect starting point.

I'm sick of waiting on franchises to run their course then for the studios to wait a few years then try again.

Comic book movies shouldn't be limited to that kind of system.

Anyway nite all.

Stuff I like: Top 10, Tom Strong, Roger Stern Avengers, Simonson Thor, Gruenwald's Captain America, Geoff Johns's JSA and Hawkman, ANY of Jeff Loeb's retro work (Superman for All Seasons, Spider-Man: Blue), I can go on, you get the deal.

Thanks to Moriarty too for sticking his neck out.

However, just because one HAS the right to do something doesn't always mean it IS the right thing to do. If Fox were persecuting everyone who went on record early with their reactions to the film, then it would be one thing, but how many actually believe it's a violation of an agreement as such which has caused Fox to cast aside the scabbard of flaming justice in order to smite these transgressors as a whole with that red-hot blade and not just the ones with opinions perceived as damaging to the studio?

The fact is that Fox has shown itself as an odious recurring character in film-related dramas (as most talkbackers can attest to), and this is just the latest example of their nature.

You know, for a studio which panicked at the keelhauling it received for details of the AvP2 script which had leaked and its indifference to the geek outrage over X3, it isn't doing much to win back any favor it may have lost. The way things are going, even if AvP2 turns out to be a decent flick (uh-huh), it will be cornholed along with Fox just out of principle. While I shudder at the prospect of AvP2 itself, I do so look forward to those talkbacks. Grease up, Fox.

I like how you call yourself "Greenhouse". It gives the air of I-don't-give-a-fuck, much like Johnny Depp's CIA character in Once Upon A Time In Mexico wearing a CIA t-shirt in public. Unfortunately for you, you are not Johnny Depp's character in Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and the tongue-in-cheek deflection has subsequently failed.

I also like when you use words like "shit" and "fuckers". It gives the impression that you're actually not some tight-ass, well-mannered exec who dabbles in geek anthropology. However, it's effect is negated by terms like "effin'" and "mos def" and "cuz". Extra points, though, for not succumbing to the temptation of using "this flick's da booooooommmmb!"

Despite the fact that you planty folks seem to have done the homework I assigned you to last time we had this little pow-wow, I can't shake the feeling that you merely crammed rather than assimilated and grokked the wisdom I was attempting to impart.

You've got some of the geek glossary memorized, as mentioned, but your use of it is clunky and non-persuasive, (misspelling Norrin Radd and calling Galactus "The G", for example) -- something which isn't helped by the faux cool expressions a tad desperately inserted here and there.

All in all, this matter isn't entirely dissatisfying, but some of your other, glaring errors are.

Cases in point:

1) A true talkbacker would state his TB handle and also come in here to defend his work. This may seem childish and ultimately pointless, but it's the talkbacker way. You're either one of us, or you're not, but you can't fucking fool us into believing you are one of us.

2) You must never, never, never claim to have seen cinema patrons "bumping chests" or "practicing drifting in the parking lot", which, to your credit, you did not. Likewise, you must never claim to have met any kind of experts -- in this case, "a few FX people from a local firm" -- who then allegedly say things which substantiate any assertions you make about the film in question. I suppose I should be impressed by the fact that you at least were able to separate the issues of talkbacker terminology and talkbacker behaviorism and not write "I just got off the phone with a few FX people from a local firm and they agreed that the G would have looked like a tool if done as Kirby created him."

3) No talkbacker would ever, and I mean EVER, say: "Perfect to take the kids to see."

Now run along back to your diabolical whoremasters at Fox and show them your report card. I'm sure that after a few months of wearing a pointy corrective helmet courtesy of Tom Rothman, you'll be ready to show off your new mad planty skillz just in time to spin AvP2.

'Freedom of speech is dead! Long live freedom of speech!'

ps I quite enjoyed the first one and thought the trailer for this is one of the best i've ever seen!

sorry!

Seriously. Mori, "Think about that for a minute..." A Talk Backer being banned because they didn't agree with AICN viewpoints or were upset with what a Harry, you, or any person with ‘banning’ power has written in these ‘hallowed’ halls…?

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. So please, no acting like anyone here has a morale high ground to stand on.

DC and Dark Horse pulled preview comics from EVERY comic store because of early negative reviews and spoilers hitting the net. Everyone felt the punishment of a few idiots. Marvel seems to weather the yaps on the net and has even sent more out to cover the vacuum left by those who no longer do. Opportunists to the end.

Here’s the thing. People seeing test screenings (including employees of where the studio is testing/showing their movie) are under signed legal agreements NOT to review a movie. A LOT of people get away with doing so because we are, in general, faceless people that can not be traced. Memflix was sloppy and was traced. He felt the wrath of the studios. Boo-hoo. Too bad. So sad. I wish the dude well, but when you get caught breaking the rules, then you have to man up and take the pain.

I like you Mori, but man, do you sound like a little bitch with this report. “Oh, no! He sort of liked it! Quick, Fox, you better track him down and get him fired!” Dude…seriously…that is soooooo little girly. Like the spoiled rich girl Paris Hilton-type that cries for her mommy when she actually has to accept her punishment. I’m taking it that Memflix was a friend. Again, sorry he got caught, but we all take risks. Sometimes those risks come with…oh…what do they call them…? Oh yeah! Consequences.

Many of us (and BOY don’t I know it) have been relieved of duty from jobs because we spoke out. We clean up, suck it up, and move on stronger than we were before.

Here’s to you Memflix, only upward to go!

fox is protecting thier investment, aicn can sink a movie froma negative review, especially for a movie that hasn't premired yet.

and memflix while i appreciate and respect his opinions shoudl have used more caution when reviewing a movie, he works there, its common sense you dont dhit in your own backyard. and if you must then do it anonomously. i.e not have a website in your name that people can easily do a whois on and put 2 and 2 together to figure out who you are.

and projectionists i'm curious, what happens when movies are streamed directly to movie cinemas? what will you do then?

...those TBer's that were banned due to the 'FUCK ELI/HOSTEL II' thang... See, I kinda get confused and thought everyone here (TBers and paid types included) were contributors to the site as well. Heck, I’ve had reviews printed here. So I guess I’m a Silver Member, at the least. And yes, I’ve even been called a ‘plant’. Whatever.

Anywho, and ignoring the really lame insults slung towards me, the boy signed a contract. We all do when we get adult jobs. This isn't some 'free speech' thing. Sure, a positive review has a lot more chance of being over looked. Whatever again. Thems just the way things go. But, when you bite the hand that feeds you, the rolled up newspaper of the Gods smacks your nose hard. It's called life. Deal.

And I'm more than confused by your Snakes On A Plane reference. The producers of SOAP DEPENDED on the net geeks to even help make the film (asking for suggestions for scenes and various ideas) and produced a piece of dreck. It went from #1 to #7 in the Box Office in ONE week. It made 34 Million in its U.S. domestic run, yet it was predicted to make 100 Million+ due to ‘Net Buzz’. So no offense, but ‘huh’?

And this isn’t a question of paid professionals that work for some news service writing a negative review. See, even those professional types, they are under agreements to only release their reviews on or after a certain date. If they do not honor that agreement, they may be banned form studio provided review showings. That’s a years old practice. Much like if they tracked a non-industry net reviewer who broke the contract they are made to sign before watching a screening, those names go on a watch list. If the name matches a person they feel has broken the trust of a previous contract, they are turned away from future movie screenings.

Really, leave this ‘big evil corporation’ tired tripe behind. Are they businesses watching their financial asses? Sure. Are they attacking free speech? Not so much. In the legal end of things, they are holding up a contracted employee to the work agreement they signed.

Feel free to go to your job tomorrow and start yelling at the top of your lungs how your job sucks and warn the customers who buy whatever product your employer provides, that it’s not very good. Pretty sure you’ll be out on your hind end by lunch. Please, though, let them know you were practicing your right to free speech. If not, then you have some damn good employers and let me know where to send my resume! Take care!

Anyway, Memflix. I'm sorry about what happened to you, mate. That will, I suppose, always be one of the shittier things that's happened to you in your life. That said, any time a person says or does something (regardless of whether they've signed a non-disclosure agreement) that might effect their employer's perceived ability to earn money, they are going to get fired. Is it shit? Yes. Should we be outraged? Of course. Is it going to change anything? Not really. I hope you get yourself a better job and something good comes out of this whole affair. But next time, I hope that you either a) think twice before acting, or b) do a better job of covering your tracks. It's a jungle out there, Memflix. People will fuck you up if you let them.

That is Dr Perry Cox from Scrubs.

He was born for that role.

And what is with the only negatives being Alba's hair and some continuity issues? That sounds like Fox sanctioned critisism to me.

my expectations for this film are very very low. I'm not seeing it in theaters. I will very likely Netflix it and then forget about it.

How hard can it be to get the FF right?

Personally I would have loved Galactus to be exactly how he is in the books. I would have loved it.

DAMN YOU TOM ROTHMAN

Finky, the problem will not be the 'cloud' in FF2, because the way it was described doesn't sound that bad. It sounds like more of a 'cover' than what he actually is per se. It's everything else that will bad: acting, story, characterizations, etc. But it is, after all, for little kids. Not a valid excuse in my opinion, because one only has to look at The Incredibles to know how a kids' movie needs to be made.

I'm much more sad about DHINO. Walter B, why oh why couldn't you have done a 'R' rated Die Hard???? There's someone in the film who plays a "Slacker Kid". Fuck no, that does not belong in a DH movie.

Oh, and I'll send Jessica Alba over as soon as she's able to walk. Her rump is a little on the sore side right now.

That's probably the right call Abom, since I'm sure your daughter will enjoy TF much more.

I don't feel so bad now that Carice Van Houten is coming by your place very, very, very tired and covered in cheadle...