comment #1

AbeFroman says ...

Um. Why would you reveal this insanely pivotal plot point right in the headline/first sentence? It seems a little cold even by your standards, Mr. Wells.

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

Kind of ironic, considering the money FOX made through Leo in Titanic and Lurhmann's own Romeo and Juliet. Not that I think it'll matter to the box office either way...

comment #3

DeafBrownTrashPunk says ...

that is so lame.

i hate fake happy endings. I'll take sad realistic endings anytime anyday!

although to this day I still feel depressed whenever I think about the ending in Se7en...

:-/

comment #4

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Abe Froman: What is it about the fact Australia's Herald Sun has already run this story don't you understand?

comment #5

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Guess I have to keep the wife off of HE for now on, because she would fucking have Jeff killed had she read this.

Perhaps we should offer a bounty to the person who spoils the next film Jeff is dying to see.

Me, I could care less. I'm being dragged to this whether I want to see it or not (those with wives or girlfriends are all nodding in agreement). But good lord, holy shit was that the dick-move spoiler of all dick-move spoilers.

Somebody definitely pissed on Jeff's cornflakes today.

comment #6

alynch says ...

Jeff, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the majority of your readership doesn't regularly check out Australia's Herald Sun.

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to alynch, deathtongue groupie: Look, guys...if something is out there, it's out there . Doesn't matter if the newspaper that revealed the info is from Australia or New Guinea or Katmandu. We live in an instant-info world in which news travels faster than light. If I hadn't posted the gist of this story (which comes from someone working for a semi-legit Aussie rag), are you saying no one else would have? The story would have stayed south of the equator? Jeeeeez.

comment #8

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

See if you might grasp the not so subtle difference here:

"Baz Luhrmann agrees to happy ending for Australia"
vs
"He'll Die on the DVD"

And you STILL have that as the header, making the spoiler notice completely worthless. I say let's double the bounty for whomever can spoil a future film for Jeff.

Maybe we should go back to politics, because at least all of his spoilers there turned out to be false.

comment #9

D.Z. says ...

Well, even if that wasn't the ending, Kidman would probably kill Jackman's career the way she killed Law's in Cold Mountain, anyway. But we'll really see the former actor's staying power with Wolverine.

comment #10

BurmaShave says ...

Thank god I don't care about this movie. You know you fucked up Wells.

comment #11

huntermdaniels says ...

So, Wells, child porn is A-OKAY and should be sold and promoted in stores because, "it's out there anyway"?

I know that's a big jump, and perhaps a step into equivocation, but it seems to me that it's the same argument.

comment #12

huntermdaniels says ...

Putting a spoiler warning underneath the headline and above the picture of Jackman has the EXACT SAME effect.

Wells, you have pissed off every single one of your readers whether they care about the film or not. I have been looking forward to this film so much that I have managed to avoid watching even a trailer and now you fucked me over for your own self aggrandizing ego trip.

You've proven yourself to be an inconsiderate oaf and a poor reporter. Shame on you Mr. Wells. Shame on you.

comment #13

Mr. Muckle says ...

Reasons why Jeff will never have any kind of government security clearance.

comment #14

Zac Bertschy says ...

Nobody here gave a shit about Australia to begin with, stop posturing. The lot of you are drama queen attention whores who pray that some day Defamer will publish your comments.

If it's one thing I can't stand it's false outrage.

comment #15

brunswickstoval says ...

As an Australian, let me tell you the Herald Sun is anything but semi-legit - most people here don't read it for more than the 2 minutes it takes to order and receive your coffee in the morning,

comment #16

ZayTonday says ...

Yeah, because killing off Jack in Titanic ensured that it would be a box office bomb.

comment #17

transmogrifier says ...

Dick move by Mr. Wells. Every time he spoils indiscriminantly, it's a dick move. A weird type of power trip to get your kicks over, but I guess we all have our kinks.

And I couldn't give a shit about Australia.

comment #18

alynch says ...

I actually don't even give a shit about this movie, so I'm not all that worked up about it. I just hand to point out how Wells's rationalization was bullshit. This is nowhere near as bad as the time that he spoiled No Country For Old Men six months before its U.S. release.

comment #19

Craptastic says ...

Wells, either you're THAT inconsiderate or you're simply REALLY wanting more hits.

How hard was it for you to not write: "Warning, Spoliers"?

If it's out there it's out there?

So, with your logic, if my house is on fire I should be okay with it spreading to my neighbor's?

comment #20

mtgilchrist says ...

I don't particularly care about this movie, but this is possibly the biggest fucking asshole move you've ever pulled. Not everyone devotes their time to finding every bit of information about every movie as soon as it's available, like you do, so your argument that "it's out there" doesn't justify ruining the experience of seeing this movie for the rest of us. But have some goddamn consideration for people who actually like to be surprised by the movies they watch and include your information below the "read more" tag. You could have said "they pressured Luhrmann to change the ending - READ MORE." You didn't have to spoil it in the first fucking sentence. Anyone who reads this site knows you're not capable of actually backing down, apologizing or printing a retraction, but have respect for the people who respect you and think for one second about the fact that they might not have wanted to know the ENDING TO A GODDAMN MOVIE UNTIL THEY SAW IT.

comment #21

doobiedoo says ...

The mob has spoken, Jeff - and i have to concur. This was an appalling post, a really shitty move. Either you have contempt for your readership, or.. well, really, there's no other assessment. You've treated your readers with contempt.

Badly, badly done.

comment #22

Craptastic says ...

You know what, Wells? I really constrained myself in my post earlier. I'm much more pissed off than my tone suggested.

I was actually kind of looking forward to this film and avoided most info on it in order to go in fresh. Yes, it IS possible to do so in this day and age, contrary to your simple-minded opinion. I've been doing it for a while now and am completely content in doing so.

With that... FUCK OFF.

Continue your lame attempts at starting controversey in order to make more "hard earned" cash but leave us true film lovers-- ones that snark at being judged as "true" from identifying a shitty sound bite-- alone by having the foresight to know that maybe we don't want our films spoiled in the fucking headline of the article.

You, Wells, are not a true film lover.

comment #23

bfm says ...

Maybe it's just me, but it is really such a major spoiler when all you know is that the hero doesn't die at the end? (And given that the film is still being edited, even that can't be said with certainty). Once the film opens, I would imagine that a happy end vs a tragic end would become common knowledge fairly quickly. Knowing that Leo dies at the end of Titanic (along with many others) did not spoil that movie for me. Knowing that Rhett doesn't die at the end of Gone With The Wind hardly tells me how it will wrap up. The way you are all reacting, it would seem that Jeff had given a blow by blow account of every element of the plot...which is hardly the case.

Personally I find it more interesting they are still trying to decide how to end the movie only days out from the Premiere. I would have thought that was something pretty fundamental. If Baz is having to go with something that was never his vision during the shoot, i wonder how it will all hang together.

comment #24

York "Budd" Durden says ...

>Personally I find it more interesting they are still trying to decide >how to end the movie only days out from the Premiere.

That's the real story here. Not a good sign for the film.

And Wells, pay no attention to these crying pussies. No one is forcing anyone to read your posts, spoilerific or not.

comment #25

gruver1 says ...

Wells to whining babies: You disparage me for passing along a story that's dead certain to get passed around to other sites and picked up by various news orgs? Awards Daily's Sasha Stone ran this story last night also. New York's Vulture posted it this morning. [http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/11/baz_luhrman_australia.html] So will everyone else sooner or later. The cat is out of the bag.

You call yourselves true movie lovers. Well, I'm one also and when I read the Herald Sun story I shrugged. I may not have even blinked. All I thought to myself was, "Okay, he lives in the theatrical release version but we get to see the death version on Australia's special edition DVD...big deal." Living or dying issues are nothing. The beauty and profundity in any film is in the shape, the director's attitude, the brushstrokes, the personality, the compression or expansiveness.

Endings are very important elements in any film, but the only ones that need to be kept really secret at all costs are the ones that depend on surprise or delivering some form of "ah-hah!" finish that are absolutely crucial to the scheme, as with The Sixth Sense or Citizen Kane. Whether or not a character lives or dies at the end of a big-canvas film....meh.

If you understand nothing else, understand this: the lowest level or rung of movie appreciation is focusing on story and subject matter. It's not that Eric Clapton chooses to perform a certain Howlin' Wolf song at a concert at Albert Hall -- it's how he performs the song that counts. Does the subject matter of an 18th Century painting hanging in the Louvre have any but the slightest effect upon your appreciation of it?

When any given movie opens subject matter and story are what the serfs, peasants and popcorn-eaters -- nine out of ten, possibly 95 out of 100 people -- always seem to care about the most. But true believers and elite connoisseurs of film know better. Please.

comment #26

Zimmergirl says ...

This is so weird - I can't believe you people are whining like babies over this. Has Wells become the eternal father figure to a collection of day care kids? Do you all really live in an isolated bubble so that when you do a search for entertainment news and the headline about the ending comes up you cover your eyes at best - or you write an angry letter to the letter about SPOILERS? This is the winner, though:

"So, Wells, child porn is A-OKAY and should be sold and promoted in stores because, "it's out there anyway"? "

Child porn. Spoilers. Yeah, they're the same!

comment #27

p.Vice says ...

FYI, I read this Jackman spoiler months ago on AICN, so it really isn't that big of a deal.

The huge spoiler here for most people should be that Luhrmann is obviously a piece of shit hack for caving in to this nonsense, although anyone who's seen his previous sins would surely know that already. This is another reason to avoid this movie altogether. Thanks, 20th Century Fox and moronic test-screening viewers and dickless Baz, for saving me three hours of my life!!!

comment #28

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Jeff, a lot of people that come here aren't necessarily in the entertainment industry and don't necessarily seek out information about movies that won't be released until 2-3 months down the line (or more). For a lot of people, sitting down and absorbing a film they know nothing about (and this *does* including plot information, I don't care how you slice it, it's a major ingredient in the narrative aesthetic) is one of the few pleasures they're afforded in life. While you may not share that view, as a fellow film fan, you should probably respect it, nonetheless. Especially since your site presumably caters to that demographic.

You use the example of Clapton playing a song in concert. How about a mystery novel's ending that was spoiled for you? Do you think you would be more or less likely to read it after this occurs? Perhaps that's not an entirely fair comparison, but neither was your musical one. Films still have much more in common with literature than music as far as how our brain processes the information and is "rewarded" by predicting outcomes onscreen or "tricked" by unexpected plot twists.

And for what it's worth, I don't really think the ending to Kane is "crucial to the scheme," as you put it.

comment #29

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Having said that, I have no interest whatsoever in Australia. That was a preventative argument in case the plots of Benjamin Button, The Wrestler, Let the Right One In are discussed in the upcoming weeks. I have to say my trust is low, so I'll probably be skipping those posts and coming back to them in '09 (or not).

comment #30

Marcello says ...

The tyranny of the test audience! Obviously the movie is testing poorly, or executives wouldn't care whether people complained about the ending. So now they are putting relentless pressure on Luhrman (who can't be comforted by poor test scores either) to change the ending. The reality is that the movie is probably too "arty" for a general audience, so these "reviewers" hated it, and now they're trying to make a drastic move to make it more palatable to the mainstream. Likewise, they released these otherwise positive responses from the test audience to make it seem like the ending was the only thing they disapproved of. It's such an ugly, pathetic, self destructive system. If they just used to to come up with marketing strategies, then fine. But creative decisions should only be made this way in propaganda efforts.

comment #31

Rich S. says ...

For you newcomers out there, let me explain something to you. Your complaining about spoilers is utterly and completely irrelevant. This is because Jeffrey Wells LIVES to spoil films.

Let me make this perfectly clear: Jeffrey Wells' number one pleasure as a movie critic/entertainment blogger is to see a movie before everyone else and then ruin it for them. This not only pertains to critical plot points. It also includes the best jokes or lines from a film.

Whether it's a power trip or whatever, I don't know. But he's been doing it for as long as I have been reading him (going on 8 years) and he's not going to stop.

He rationalizes it every single time he does it, usually with "the movie came out 3 hours ago, where were you?" Unless of course it hasn't come out yet, when it's something along the lines of "other bloggers have already talked about this, it's fair game!" But he never EVER posts a spoiler warning until he's already posted the spoiler and been called on it.

Just know this. If you are excited about a movie and you don't want to know anything about it, stop reading this site when the first critics screenings start. And avoid Jeffrey's reviews like all holy hell until you've seen the movie. It's the only way to be sure.

comment #32

rr3333 says ...

Wells' supposed goof isnt nearly as bad as Lou Lumenick of the NY Post giving away the spoiler of the Kristin Scott Thomas movie as to why she was in jail (in the FIRST FREAKIN PARAGRAPH) when nearly all reviewers wouldn't give away the spoiler AT ALL.

Hey Lou: YOU SUCK!

We luv you Wells. you should see if you can create in your blog 'Click here for spoiler' like many websites have the ability to do.

Now, if you were to tell me Kidman dies in the flick, I would applaud loudly! I hate that chick.

comment #33

alynch says ...

You disparage me for passing along a story that's dead certain to get passed around to other sites and picked up by various news orgs? Awards Daily's Sasha Stone ran this story last night also. So will everyone else sooner or later. The cat is out of the bag.

That's an interesting, albeit illogical, point. Lets take a look at what Sasha Stone wrote and compare. She wrote a single, deliberately vague paragraph that goes as follows:

This story claims that Baz Luhrmann was forced to change the ending of Australia to give it a more upbeat ending, this news breaking a few weeks before the film is set to be released. It also says Hugh Jackman steals the show. A teaser clip of a shirtless and sculpted Jackman appeared on Thursday’s Grey’s Anatomy. The story gives a spoiler to the film’s ending so perhaps they are trying to leak the info that it isn’t going to be a downer.

Notice that she doesn't at any point says anyting along the lines of "Hugh Jackman no longer dies at the end, as was originally planned." People who are visiting the site, but don't want to be spoiled to a film's ending will be able to read that paragraph, choose not to click on the article, and have no specific idea as to how the film ends except for a vague idea of it not being a downer, which could mean several things. There's a pretty clear difference between what she wrote and what you wrote and by trying to claim some sort of equivalency, you are being deliberatly specious.

And just because it can't be said enough, you spoiled No Country For Old Men six months before it came out. Perhaps I'd let you off the hook with this one if you haven't shown repeatedly that you don't give a shit about other people's film experiences.

comment #34

mtgilchrist says ...

How do you not understand that all people want is an opportunity NOT to see a spoiler if they don't want to? No one is complaining about the fact that you reported this story. They're complaining that you have so little professionalism that you put a spoiler in the HEADLINE (now changed) and the FIRST SENTENCE of a post. All we want is for you to PUT THE SPOILER AFTER THE JUMP!

As insightful and considerate as you often are with your observations about movies, I have no idea how it is possible that you seem to be incapable of understanding why people have a problem with this. Not one post has said "don't put this up." They have all said "you ruined a surprise about a movie that isn't out yet without any thought of whether everyone who visits your site would want that surprise ruined." Even as a person who covers just about every movie released and who understands all of the formulas and conventions and cliches of movie storytelling, I like to go into movies knowing as little about what happens in them as possible, whether it's a suprise ending on a thriller or the ending to High School Musical 3. Like many, I checked the site casually last night and in the process of scrolling down the page I saw it before I was able to bypass it, because of the way you presented it. The fact that you still don't understand people's objections indicates that either you are willfully going to argue your point even when you know you are wrong, or you are just completely out of touch with the readership of your site, if not the industry that you cover.

comment #35

tjfar67 says ...

Leo dies at the end of the Titanic?

Thanks guys.

"Maybe it's just me, but it is really such a major spoiler when all you know is that the hero doesn't die at the end?"

true dat

comment #36

BurmaShave says ...

Wells, all you had to do to CYA was include the spoiler after the jump, and not in the headline. No one is saying you shouldn't have reported the story, just been more respectful of the members of your readership that were interested in seeing the film.

comment #37

storymark says ...

Apparently, there are those who still don't understand the HE policy on spoilers: If anyone, anywhere in the world has seen and/or said anything about the end of the movie, it is Jeff's obligation to blow it for everyone who visits his site, regardless of whether or not they want to know, or how hard they have been trying not to find out the ending.

If you don't like it - fuck off.

comment #38

storymark says ...

I mean, it's not like this is the first, or even tenth time he's done this.

comment #39

longrunner says ...

It's passive aggression and it's off-putting to say the least.

comment #40

huntermdaniels says ...

BFM, you know that Jack died at the BEGINNING of Titanic. That's integral to the internal tension of the piece. You know this sweet boy is doomed from the moment he wins that poker game.

comment #41

mizerock says ...

The beloved main character dies even though the logic / flow / tone of the movie doesn' t "need" him to be killed? Huh. Are you sure Joss Whedon didn't write this?

comment #42

storymark says ...

That might be a better crack if it had any basis in reality, mize...

comment #43

LYT says ...

The ending of WATCHMEN is also now "out there"...I'm guessing the only reason it hasn't been posted here is that Jeff doesn't realize the significance of what Zack Snyder recently said, vis-a-vis the story.

comment #44

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

In the end, it seems to boil down to an age thing: those who are more of the internet age see a giant breach of blog protocol and civility. Which is kinda dumb considering that a site like this needs new visitors to survive. Announcing to all the new people that your expectations of such protocol and civility makes you into a "whiner" isn't likely to make them feel like sticking around.

The response is classic Jeff - begrudgingly admit your mistake while belittling those who complained. Which would be fine, but considering has happened to those who try to give back as good as they have gotten....

comment #45

mtgilchrist says ...

...except that he never admit his mistake. Moreover, he either willfully or ignorantly refused to acknowledge the problem people had - which was not posting the actual spoiler after the jump. It's funny you have so much of a problem with Dubya, Jeff, because you guys have a lot in common - unless of course there's some documented proof of you admitting to a mistake, or even correcting one.