Fox vs. Fox

email this story
read comments (29)
post a comment

Yesterday 20th Century Fox sent out a release condemning Roger Friedman's two-day-old review on Fox 411 of the illegal Wolverine work print -- a review which has since been taken down but is still accessible here.

"We've just been made aware that Roger Friedman, a freelance columnist who writes Fox 411 on Foxnews.com -- an entirely separate company from 20th Century Fox -- watched on the internet and reviewed a stolen and unfinished version of X-Men Origins: Wolverine," the release said (according to Hitfix's Drew McWeeny). "This behavior is reprehensible and we condemn this act categorically -- whether the review is good or bad."

Friedman downloaded the work print last Wednesday night and yes, praised what he saw (particularly David Benioff's "streamlined" screenplay). He said the uncompleted special effects "didn't take away from the film at all" although "a couple of times it was possible to see the harnesses on the actors."

If Wolverine ends up suffering serious damage from the piracy (and I say "if"), it'll be due to the pre-release online buzz and not from any prospective revenue loss due to people who've seen it online not paying to see it in theatres. The word so far has not been ecstatic -- let's face it -- and Friedman probably reasoned he was doing 20th Century Fox a favor by posting his thumbs-up reaction.

He decided to review it, he wrote, because "the cat is out of the bag and the genie is out of the bottle" and therefore, he felt, the questions of legality were moot because "there's no turning back."

He said that "obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website, [which] begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects! Let's hope by now it's gone."

I have an acute aversion to illegal downloads in all senses of the term -- ethical, practical, aesthetic, political. Friedman shouldn't have gone there, but, as noted, he probably had a notion that his positive reaction to the film would have some kind of upside effect and that Fox resultantly wouldn't freak out. But they did.

The curious thing is that all of this broke yesterday when the Friedman piece in question was up as of early Thursday morning. You'd think 20th Century Fox would have gotten its response out that same day...no?

The correct phraseology when it comes to cats and bags, by the way, is "cat's in the bag and the bag's in the river." That's straight from the typewriter of Clifford Odets in his rewritten screenplay for Sweet Smell of Success.

Boozy Fog<< previous | next >>Portman Mystery Project

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on April 4, 2009 at 7:06 AM

comment #1

Admiral82 says ...

I won't see Wolverine....

Not because I can watch it on the internet.

I think it looks like shit.

Posted by Admiral82 at April 4, 2009 8:53 AM

comment #2

The Winchester says ...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e0c57bbd21/wolverine-entire-movie-leaked-online

Pretty much sums it up.

Posted by The Winchester at April 4, 2009 9:28 AM

comment #3

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Winchester: That's pretty funny. Thanks.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at April 4, 2009 9:44 AM

comment #4

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

The AICN talkback about this story is hilarious. McWeeny acting his typically pompous self and being totally schooled by the talkbackers. For a site that made its name on early reviews of unfinished work prints to be demanding a man get fired over the same is utterly hypocritical. And for McWeeny to demand someone lose their job in this climate for the crime of watching a film and saying positive things about it online is disgusting really. He's always been a holier-than-thou twat and this little episode brings all those ugly characteristics to the forefront.

Plus, as many of those TBers mentioned, he admitted downloading a copy of Spirited Away sometime ago. Not to mention Knowles reviewing a stolen print of Attack of the Clones.

Wankers.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at April 4, 2009 9:49 AM

comment #5

tfunk23 says ...

i'd be surprised if this guy isn't fired by next week. he's a tool and clearly if 20th century fox wanted him to do this, they wouldn't have taken it down. though i'm not surprised - fox news is the full of retards. frankly, i wouldn't want to read a review written by them anyway. gonna see the movie because, well, despite everything, i care about watching movies in the form they were intended to be in.

Posted by tfunk23 at April 4, 2009 11:21 AM

comment #6

alynch says ...

Not only did Friedman illegaly review a film, he misused "beg the question." Fuck this guy.

Posted by alynch at April 4, 2009 11:25 AM

comment #7

Renfield says ...

The AICN talkback about this IS highly entertaining. Entertaining in the sense that McWeenie and Knowles are making complete asses of themselves.

For Knowles to even TRY to say that watching a stolen copy of Attack Of The Clones is okay because he's a "journalist" just shows how insane that guy is. How is that any different than what Friedman did?

Posted by Renfield at April 4, 2009 11:29 AM

comment #8

djiggs says ...

Mr. Wells,

How is Friedman's action with "Wolverine" any different than your review of the alternate workprint of "Gangs of New York" that you and Dave Poland viewed prior to the release of the actual movie in December 2002? (Link: http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/elsewhere/33.html) Weren't the Wolverine downloaders, Roger Friedman, Dave Poland and yourself all in possession of stolen material in order to review it?

I have also posted this question to Mr. Poland at his blog because I genuinely interested in how you justify "I have an acute aversion to illegal downloads in all senses of the term -- ethical, practical, aesthetic, political." to your past behavior. Just wondering.

Posted by djiggs at April 4, 2009 11:46 AM

comment #9

Moises Chiullan says ...

@djiggs

You don't seem to be aware that the term "workprint" is not exclusively applied to illegal downloads. Jeff didn't download what he saw. Neither did Poland. His "past behavior" involves being a journalist shown an unfinished cut of a movie.

Journalists routinely see early, unfinished "workprint" versions of movies prior to final cut being locked. These are screenings, not illicit digital files. There's no comparison to what Roger Friedman did.

Posted by Moises Chiullan at April 4, 2009 12:08 PM

comment #10

Jeffrey Wells says ...

You may recall that Gangs of New York was delayed due to Harvey Weinstein's re-editings and adding a Leo narration track and changes in the music, etc. I was given a tape of an earlier version of the film -- pretty much an all-Scorsese version -- that didn't reflect any of the Harvey changes. It was striking how much more interesting it was because it didn't goose the viewer along in any way. It simply allowed the viewer to just find his/her way into the film without assists or voice-overs or goadings of any kind. It struck me as a much better film for this. It seemed fair to report about what the film was before it got the Harvey treatment -- that's all. It was an Avid copy that was slipped to me on VHS. I shared it with Poland and we both wrote about it.

Posted by Jeffrey Wells at April 4, 2009 12:19 PM

comment #11

djiggs says ...

Mr. Wells,

But, wasn't that work print property of Miramax? From your column, you received the work print from a friend of a friend...you did not view it in Scorsese' editing room or screening room. You use the words "slipped to me" - implying that this was done through unofficial channels. How is the Avid copy slipped to you any different than illegal downloaders getting slipped Wolverine.

And using your argument that you were comparing and contrasting the work print with the actual product, couldn't Roger Friedman just say that he was doing his journalistic duty to counterattack negative buzz on "Wolverine"? Or the illegal downloader/blogger with the bit of protecting the consumer from spending his $7 to $12 on a bad moviegoing experience?

Mr. Wells, I hope that you do not feel that I am attacking or accusing you. I respect your writing and insight & feel you are a stand up guy. I guess that I am curious/flummoxed/bewildered on the ethics of this situation as it concerns web journalism.

Posted by djiggs at April 4, 2009 12:45 PM

comment #12

Renfield says ...

Wells,

So what is the difference between watching a slipped work print VHS and watching a pirated work print for free online?

It seems both should be held to the same personal ethics.

However, the serious crime here is that Scorcese's version of Gangs has not been released.

Posted by Renfield at April 4, 2009 12:49 PM

comment #13

Moises Chiullan says ...

djiggs, Renfield....

The differences are major and twofold: the nature of distribution and distributive intent.

There is a difference here because of the nature of the "distribution." Private vs. mass public consumption. BitTorrent availability and a single copy provided to a journalist by an inside source are completely different things.

One is available to anyone with the compromised morals and technical knowledge. The other is consciously provided with an honorable agreement to one individual for a specific purpose.

This is the same as a director, producer, cinematographer, or editor getting screwed on their final cut showing a critic friend the version that a studio is interfering with. This is how they saved Fanboys from Harvey's "no cancer" cut. This "behavior" is what Terry Gilliam engaged in to save Brazil from its infamous "love conquers all" recutting.

Yes, the related grey area here is in cases like the Hulk reviews that ran on AICN and the Attack of the Clones thing. Jeff's Gangs writing is a different, sanctioned thing...either the corporate owner of the product, or a producer thereof.

I wouldn't press him to reveal the source, but my assumption is that the person who passed Gangs to Jeff was not creating bootlegs and passing them around so people could buy them at flea markets and avoid paying to see it in a cinema. Whoever passed it along was trying to fight for the integrity of the film.

The Wolverine leak was a very, very public thing done by someone with a motive to harm rather than defend artistic integrity.

No matter what fringe conspiracy theory you might ascribe to, the leak came from outside the immediate production team AND the studio. Fox spent millions of dollars and weeks of work re-shaping the film, and this is the last thing they want.

What Friedman engaged in was high piracy, because not only did he download the thing and review it, but he proceeded to tell people how to start life as bittorrenting, movie-downloading privateers.

As often as the studios decry online writers reviewing unfinished cuts, this is beyond breaking taboo. There is no "better" early cut out there, specifically fed to sympathetic journalists, this is bad buzz-generating, vile sabotage.

It's a matter of who distributes and how, and the two cases couldn't be more different.

Posted by Moises Chiullan at April 4, 2009 1:29 PM

comment #14

Jeremy Smith says ...

Well put, Moises.

I always figured the GANGS OF NEW YORK workprint was officially leaked to counteract the mounting sense that the film was a disaster (i.e. they were confident that there was a great film in there - they just hadn't found it yet). And Scorsese's on record as saying that the theatrical version *is* his final, preferred cut.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at April 4, 2009 1:43 PM

comment #15

Renfield says ...

Moises,

You make some good points to ponder over but it is my opinion that both situations involve basic-level theft.

Posted by Renfield at April 4, 2009 2:41 PM

comment #16

frank_delsa says ...

People are forgetting the real precedent for this: not Gangs of NY or Attack of the Clones, but Hostel II. Workprint leaked weeks before the movie opened, but I don't remember the outrage over that. I remember David Poland writing a scathing review based on the workprint, and starting a crusade against Eli Roth and the so called "torture porn" (hate the term, sorry), and, I think but maybe I don't remember right, Nikki Finke (who was a long time crusader on the subject) writing something like she was happy the movie leaked before the official release date...I remember Eli Roth being treated in the media as someone slightly below a drug dealer, morally, because of the movie, but I really don't remember the outrage over the leak...
Anyway, on today's subject, I'm of the school of thought that believe file sharing and downloading don't make a dent to the box office performances of movies, a school of thought further reinforced this year by Taken's ascension to blockbuster status (but hey just take a look to the performances of some popular Oscar winners, like Slumdog Millionaire and The Departed, or Oscar friendly movies like Gran Torino...) and I think it's very strange that Friedman would do something like this out of the blue, of his own accord.
It seems to me he was trying to propagate good buzz on the film.
I think the keyword here is "workrprint" of a movie that hadn't started screening anywhere. Meaning the copy leaked was not meant to be seen.
Still, I'm very curious to see Wolverine opening weekend, now...My guess, it will match previous expectations, but we'll see...

Posted by frank_delsa at April 4, 2009 3:10 PM

comment #17

Ray says ...

God, I wish all these hypocritical movie websites would stop their fucking bitching. They are indistinguishable from the internet thieves; the only difference between them might be the steady under-the-table money they receive from the studios in the first place. What a joke.

http://www.obsessedwithfilm.com/unfiltered-lens/piracy-and-the-art-of-posturing.php

Posted by Ray at April 4, 2009 4:17 PM

comment #18

frankbooth says ...

"In medieval England, piglets were sold in the open marketplace. The seller usually kept the pig in a bag, so it would be easier for the buyer to take it home. But shady sellers often tried to trick their buyers by putting a large cat in the bag. If a shrewd shopper looked in the bag - then the cat was literally out of the bag. (By the way, the bag was called a "poke," which is likely where the phrase "a pig in a poke," which nowadays means buying an unknown, came from.)"

http://www.xmission.com/~emailbox/phrases.htm

Posted by frankbooth at April 4, 2009 7:19 PM

comment #19

BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey says ...

Ray is spot-on. AICN might be nothing more than a studio hype site now, but for them to pretend that they didn't establish their brand off the back of reviewing unfinished works is absurd. McWeeny really is a prick.

Beaks is a cunt and all.

Posted by BoshBarnetWonkyDonkey at April 4, 2009 7:34 PM

comment #20

tfunk23 says ...

FRIEDMAN FIRED! breaking.

i'm not surprised. and good on 20th century fox for following through on their word.

Posted by tfunk23 at April 4, 2009 9:54 PM

comment #21

D.Z. says ...

That GONY example makes me wonder why studios are still stuck in the pre-home video era when they refuse to release more than one version of a film, even though those tend to be more profitable than just settling for the executive cut. Look how long it took Harvey to get on the "Asian films with [inaccurate] subs" bandwagon, or Lucas to give us the OT when it was the OT, and not the SE. And then there are the times they front on putting out tv shows on dvd, just because of the music rights, even though the studios are worth millions and/or billions of dollars, and even though those shows have a following which would guarantee the money back. I also love how the argument goes that it'd be too much for the market to bear, but then they have no problems charging us twice and extra for the same movie on BD. Just totally riles me how full of it those excuses are...

Posted by D.Z. at April 5, 2009 12:53 AM

comment #22