Who Pays?
Update – Fox feels that the Live Free or Die Hard is not being hidden at all. The screening on Monday (for the Wednesday release) is a gutsy all-media and there was a Friday screening for schedule concious print critics on the Fox lot. So there, David Poland!!!
==============================================================
Who is paying for The Little Projectionist Who Noodged?
Real journalists. As usual.
Fox’s next big release, Live Free Or Die Hard, will screen once for non-long lead/non-junket journalists in Los Angeles, next Monday, opposite a parade of other screenings in town and the LA Film Festival. RSVPs are being tightly watched.
In other cities, a screening is being offered… no guests… and the explicit threat that anyone who breaks embargo before the day of release will be removed from the Fox screening list in future.
I assume the reaction in some quarters will be to make fun of Fox for becoming more strict in enforcing the rules that have always been in place in an agreed-upon, unspoken way. These are likely the same people who are enraged that Fox somehow didn’t explicitly tell Noodge that he wasn’t supposed to review a private trade screening from his projection booth.
(ABOVE CORRECTED 12:45a, 6/20 – It was a trade screening, not a private, recruited test screening.. whih I feel is even worse.)
In other words… Fox (or any studio) can’t win. The expectation is that they should just make all their private, very expensive info free… like The Pentagon Papers or Watergate.
Of course, the studios still have only themselves to blame in that when people they need for promotion say that rules are there to be broken, it is still business as usual. So it is hard to kiss up to that hypocrisy.
But as has always been the case with this conflict, the people who actually do this for a living and who do play within the rules are the ones who get the comeuppance of those who really couldn’t care less.
But isn’t that the whole ballgame? You get paid to write about entertainment. We have to pay for it. The ones who really suffer, always always always, are the people who have to plunk down their ten bucks to see a piece of shit like Fantastic Four 2. Entertainment journalists don’t have to spend a nickel to see these films. I’m sorry, but I can’t cry for you.
A test screening and a trade screening are two hugely different things, Poland. You keep calling this Malco/Fox kerfuffle a test screening when it certainly was nothing of the sort.
The fact that the movie is coming out on a Weds. on a non-holiday weekend…don’t you think Fox is afraid to see that Ratouille grossed more than DH4 in the same three-day period?
I know of at least one city where it’s screening this Thursday.
But this leads me to ask the question — why SHOULD reviewers get to have guests? No other profession allows people to take their dates to work. It’s nice when we can bring friends, but if studios want to stop that part of the deal, I don’t mind.
Hurts them more anyway — the ostensible point of bringing guests (or kids, to cartoons), seems to be so that we can see how “regular” folk react, and theoretically be kinder as a result.
Does Fox have any proof, anecdotal or otherwise, that the one review on AICN hurt FF2 in any way? Seems to me the movie did quite well. That doesn’t justify the projectionist breaking confidentiality, but it does suggest that overreacting isn’t necessary.
isn’t kinda convenient for FOX to say they are tightening their rules in the wake of the FF2 incident, when they really are just trying to hide a weak movie from critics? cause i know if I was sitting on top of a really, truly kick ass Die Hard movie, i’d show it to as many people as possible for the good buzz. why else would they “hide” it (relatively speaking, of course)?
You know, I am fine with whatever rules are the rules. I don’t need to have a guest. I don’t need more than one shot at the pie. I don’t need your tears, Noah. (Your reductive assumption that I am crying is actually pretty pathetic. Why does every fucking conversation have to be reduced to a sandbox pissing match?)
But people are generally allowed guests. Studios are generally in business with the media and have a professional understanding that works. It ain’t rocket science or cancer curing.
But when things change, it is not happenstance.
As for them hiding the movie, 555… the fact is that they have already shown it to some national press and are making the film more accessible to NY critics than to LA critics. And they may be in basic Summer Overcautious mode. There is at least one more film opening in the next few weeks that is playing a similar game. But the details of this one… these are the things that, after a decade of riding this coaster, strike me as quite specific.
There is no reason to “no guest” critics other than to try to seal out interneters who they don’t know of control. But is the people who generally keep embargoes who are being punished… however much that punishment might seem a wet noodle to civilians.
P.S. Didn’t know it was a “trade screening,” Wreck… even worse, really.
Parking. Gas. Rush hours. Time. I never ask anyone in the general public to cry for me for the job we do – but let’s not pretend that we see movies completely for free. I just spent two hours in traffic, a quarter tank of overpriced gas and parking fees downtown only to discover that one of the reels was missing on a major screening, so I have to do it all again tomorrow night.
Again, not looking for a tear, but maybe Noah if the public would occasionally listen to us screaming about shit out there like Fantastic Four 2, or the giant warning sign that they are only showing certain elite press members an early screening while the rest of us have to wait until Thursday.
This is the general Fox M.O. lately and David is 100% right that its the good guys in this business, the ones who play by the rules, who are going to get screwed.
The Die Hard situation is a loaded one in trying to directly connect it with the AICN/Fantastic Four incident. This is their first screening SINCE FF2 so naturally they are trying to make a point with extra super secret RSVPs. Except the same people who were getting invited to earlier screenings of Die Hard before are still the same people.
The irony of Fox’s current screening policy is that they are still trying to hide their movies from as much of the press as possible. That way no one can say “they didn’t screen for press – caveat emptor.” However, they are screening it for the critics they believe to have the largest readership. How does that make sense? We don’t want anyone knowing how crappy our movie is, but we’ll show it to the big papers and those with TV shows.
For those keeping track – Fox’s lineup for 2007:
Epic Movie, Reno 911: Miami, Firehouse Dog, Pathfinder, Fantastic Four 2
And no, Luke… that review meant nothing.
But what seems to elude a lot of people is that precedent does matter. Like I just wrote, if they let the first one go, then they are accused of being evil by ever enforcing the initial rule again.
And (snicker, snicker) “GREAT… we hated the rule in the first place!” But there is a price for everything.
What makes me nuts about the fanboy yelping is that they are, it seems, getting off on the power of being able to fuck with The Man on one hand while claiming none of it matters on the other. If test screening reviews mean nothing… don’t run them. If they do mean something, expect to be held responsible. You can’t have it both ways… unless you have some other advantage over The Man (which many outlets do).
Dave, I wasn’t saying that you were crying. I was just trying to say that it’s hard for me to feel bad for you not being able to bring friends to the screenings when I have to wait until the film is actually released and pay the full admission. And I have to pay for gas, parking, etc. You get to see free movies before they come out and this is your job. You have to deal with a lot of shit in order to reap the benefits of your job, but so do most of us is all I’m saying.
I did not mean to start any kind of pissing match with you. I apologize if it came across that way. You said that the journalists are the ones who are punished for this, but I still think the pros of your job outweigh the cons and most people on this site, people who love movies, would love the opportunity to simply just see a movie a week or two in advance. I’d even pay more than full price for the ones I really want to see. All I’m saying is to count your blessings, it’s much better to be in a comfy air-conditioned screening room than being a dock worker.
In terms of trade screenings, I’ve seen security at them as far back as Master and Commander, and Honey, etc. For the last two LOTR films there were dudes with night vision goggles. Five years ago I saw critics in a tizzy when cellphones weren’t allowed at screenings. I don’t see how this is much worse than it’s been off and on, for the last couple.
And all of this may have more to do with Sicko and Hostel leaking than Memflix, though the Embargo might. Though that may also have everything to do with the film being a POS.
If test screening reviews mean nothing… don’t run them. If they do mean something, expect to be held responsible.
Could there be a middle ground in that? i.e. they mean nothing to the film’s ultimate bottom line, but provide momentary entertainment and rant fodder for Internet fan-boy types?
When it comes to huge studio movies, I’m seeing more and more evidence that reviews of any kind are irrelevant. As for AICN, people say Harry sunk Rollerball, but Harry’s rants against Paul W. S. Anderson and James Gunn haven’t hurt them any. Nor has their constant hyping of Hostel part II helped it much.
And yes, David, I too hate when they change the rules on us — I recently went to the new Landmark theater and was told that only that morning, they had decided not to honor courtesy passes on weekends. They have the right not to grant me free admission, of course, but I wish I had known.
Clearly, if Fox isn’t scheduling a bajillion word of mouth screenings and allowing all press to bring their friends and families, it is a surefire indication that “Live Free or Die Hard” is the single biggest cinematic abortion to ever appear in Hollywood history, and it is the direct fault of Tom Rothman, who is a vicious, monstrous vampire seeking to consume the life-blood of nubile babies and spread his hideous evil across the continents of the globe like the sinister bat-wings of Lucifer himself.
Oh, wait, this isn’t the AICN message board …
RocketScientist, for as AICN as your post was, it is still probably true. Sad.
Some of you guys are lucky David still posts what’s on his mind. Anytime he writes about anything he has a problem with, people go nuts on him. I’m glad he’s still taking it with a smile (with gritted teeth I imagine) after all this time.
Sloanish – nah, Rothman just gets a bad wrap. Fox may not be putting out the greatest movies in history (as opposed to the other studios, who are all churning out back-to-back wonders), but at least they’re not as patently stupid as, say, New Line. A bad creative department is one thing, but a bad creative department and an inept marketing team? Oy.
I also gotta point out to Erik, regarding his list of Fox releases, “Firehouse Dog” and “Epic Movie” were both done by New Regency, so if you’re gonna include those, you gotta toss in Searchlight, Atomic, Walden, et cetera.
Also, to attempt to derail, “I Know Who Killed Me” looks to be getting only slightly more than the “Wind Chill” treatment. Not that that is in any way a bad thing.
“A bad creative department is one thing, but a bad creative department and an inept marketing team?”
No, a bad creative department is *the* thing. That’s why Tom Rothman is a popular whipping boy. He has no interest in making good movies (though I’d love to hear that MASTER AND COMMANDER anecdote for the millionth time!).
AICN featured 10 minutes of streaming DIE HARD 4 footage (I never saw it, it was quickly taken down).
Hey LYT, I don’t think there is a middle ground with fanboys. I don’t think the major studios would have a problem with “early reviews” if they were written objectively. But sites like AICN seem to only operate on two extremes: THIS IS REALLY GREAT or THIS IS REALLY SHITTY. And those kind of “reviews” does no one any favors. And how many times has AICN praised or derided a film only to change their minds a week later when the critical momentum from other, more “legitimate” (at least journalistically) sites offered reviews completely contrary to theirs?
And while it’s hard to gauge whether AICN or other similar sites impact the bottom line, I think we can agree they do affect popular perception of a film which can lead to affecting it at the box office. Sadly, many newswires pick up on “stories” – ie. rumors – prior to a film’s release and treat it like a genuine story meaning that suddenly, a studio’s tentpole summer film is being bandied about in the press as a “disaster” or has “bad early reviews”.
This is why Fox is upset when a projectionist at a movie theater is suddenly writing a review of trade screening of Live Free Or Die Hard. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the major studios to expect their films to be given a fair, critical shot and to keep the experience exciting for general audiences who want to see the film rather than have it taken down early by an errant review.
Somewhat similarly related, it’s interesting how Warner’s is currently handling The Dark Knight. With a plethora of set photos, a clear look at the Joker and filming details and locations all readily available on the web, they have managed to keep the balance between pleasing the fanboys and keeping a lid on the plot details. It will be interesting to see if they can maintain this tricky act all the way to next July without any major spoilers occuring.
Dave, I keep hearing you say that everyone who goes to a test screening has to sign a statement saying they will not write about it on the internet. I have been to my fair share of recruited screenings, in Los Angeles and New York City, on studio lots and in commercial theatres, for indie features and Hollywood blockbusters, titles that were never heard from again and ones that won the Academy Award for Best Picture… and never once was an NDA ever presented to me at one of these screenings.
I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen. I’m just saying, based on my own personal experience, it doesn’t happen quite as often as you continually infer.
While I agree that memflix overstepped boundaries and deserved the consequences of his actions, I have a really hard time with the equating of one goofball’s opinion of a movie with corporate trade secrets or classified government documents. The film is finished. It is what it is. Some people will like it, while others won’t. Some will make up their minds at a point in time earlier than others. For a studio to essentially claim ownership of the guy’s opinion is just absurd.
Ed – As I recall, as I have not gone through NRG recruiting in a long time, every sheet they hand you when you go to a test screening says that the screening is confidential. I am aware that the years of people actually signing something are, according to others, long gone.
Armin – “Ownership of a guy’s opinion?” Fox doesn’t own the opinions of the people who work at Fox, much less some projectionist. The “trade” talks too, and sometimes to journalists. We read their opinions on background every week. But if they were on the record, they would have a major problem with the studio. They haven
The difference between a test screening version and a final cut can be night and day. For any critic to damn a film based on an early cut/test screening is not only unfair, it tells me that the critic has no clue about the sometime (very) circuitous route a film takes from the edit suite to the screen.
David: What side office? Where? Is she still there?
A1: Absolutely right. Truth to tell, I used to hate seeing rough cuts when I was on the junket circuit, because I always knew that I would have to see the movie again, no matter how wretched, before I could in all good conscience review it.
it’s like the old joke. guy dies and goes to purgatory. st. peter says “well, you have a choice between heaven and hell. but first a short video presentation” he pops in the first tape of heaven. it’s nice, serene, lot of harp music. the hell. and it’s a party. people laughing, having fun. the guy goes “i never thought i’d say this, but i think i’m going to go with hell.” st. peter says ok, whisks him to an elevator that plunges him into hell. he steps out and there are flames and people moaning in agony. the guy goes to the devil and says “this isn’t what they showed me.” the devil says “yeah, that was the pilot”
“As I recall, as I have not gone through NRG recruiting in a long time, every sheet they hand you when you go to a test screening says that the screening is confidential. I am aware that the years of people actually signing something are, according to others, long gone.”
Here is a link (http://www.movietickets.com/pdf/yuma.pdf) to the NRG invite to this past Monday’s test screening of “3:10 to Yuma” in Woodland Hills. I see wording about video equipment and cell phones with cameras, I see wording about intoxicated people and I see wording about no media, but I see absolutely nothing about confidentiality.
Nor do I see it on this NRG invite to last night’s screening of “The Kingdom” in Chatsworth (http://www.movietickets.com/pdf/315558.pdf) or on this invite to tonight’s screening of “Definitely, Maybe” in Thousand Oaks (http://www.movietickets.com/pdf/315556.pdf).
hendhogan, LOLOLOL (I guess I laughed hard). I’d have laughed harder if you’d said, “yeah, that was the trailer!”
glad you liked it t.holly.
edward, what do you think the no media portion of the invite is for?
“And while it’s hard to gauge whether AICN or other similar sites impact the bottom line, I think we can agree they do affect popular perception of a film which can lead to affecting it at the box office.”
See, this is where i think one of the problems is. I think people credit successes to websites and claim that websites can hurt films, but there’s no tangible evidence. In fact, most evidence points to the fact that websites really have no impact on the bottom line.
Still, to date, the most effective piece of online marketing is the background images they post on MySpace.
Rollerball sank cause it was Rollerball. Batman and Robin still made 45 million in it’s opening weekend despite rabid online hatred. Hostel 2 tanked despite the ringing endorsement of every film geek website online.
Films like Wild Hogs make money without coverage of any of the websites.
I’m no knocking the content of these sites, but i think there has been a decade long perception that these websites wield a level of power that just isn’t there. Studios used to be afraid of rocking the boat, and slowly they are beginning to assert more control. Maybe too much flexing, but i think a lot of decisions are made based on a fear of rocking the boat.
Anghus – Don’t forget about Snakes On A Plane. Tons of web exposure – yet it died a miserable death…
Hendhogan, since when do studios consider bloggers “media?”
Show me where it says on those invites anyone (media or otherwise) going to these screenings is forbidden from writing about it and I will concede the point. Or does the simple act of going to a test screening automatically make everyone who attends a member of the media?
the reason media is excluded is because the studios don’t want their product written about at that stage. it doesn’t matter what the studios think of bloggers. i would assert that bloggers think of themselves as a part of the media. so, it’s disingenuous to go to a screening knowing in advance that one will be blogging about the specifics of the movie.
so, no the simple act does not make everyone who attends a part of the media. the opposite.
This kerfuffle could have unintended consequences on arthouse/upmarket product. At least 3-4 suburban papers in the New York area review arty pics when they open in Manhattan, not when the films expand to the papers’ coverage area.
For an example I’ll bring up “Introducing the Dwights”, which opens in Manhattan on Independence Day. Let’s say Newsday prints a review of “Dwights” before it comes to Long Island. What does Warner Bros. do? Look the other way? Warn Newsday? Ban the paper’s critics and cancel all advertising?
but that’s different. once it’s released it’s in its final form.
wasn’t the memflix screening of the film in its final form? I’m under the impression that it was a finished film.
i don’t know.
but one of the reasons to screen a film is to see if everything works. if it doesn’t, they recut or add scenes.
Sure. And another reason to screen a film is to show exhibitors what they’re getting. Another reason is to show critics and journalists in advance of a release or feature story/interview. In most of those instances, it’s a finished product. So, I still have a problem with referring to a finished film as “work product” if it’s not going to be changed. That is a very different situation than someone taking an unfinished screenplay and reviewing it. And, it’s also very different than stealing corporate trade secrets and disseminating them.
yes, but if they are inviting critics then i think they’ll expect the film to be reviewed. in any case, that is not this case.
btw, saw this movie (one of those spur of the moment friends call and say let’s go in an hour), doing nothing sitting around the apartment would have been better. an abysmally bad movie. about 90 minutes too long
that’s disappointing. I knew it was unlikely, but was hoping this would be a fun movie.