More Wolverine Baiting
A remarkably ill-informed piece on The Business Insider led me to look at the work output of its author, Hillary Lewis. This led to a story headlined, “Fox CEO Tom Rothman Wrong: No New Footage In Final Version Of Wolverine.”
Oy.
This led to an AICN story with someone who goes by Veritas (the arrogance is breathtaking) saw the film at a junket or exhibitor screening and also saw the leaked download and claims: “The workprint version IS in fact identical to the release print, sans effect and some audio work.”
I haven’t seen the release print yet. But I can say, from what I did watch of the leaked version via a street-bought DVD of the film (as I wrote about last month), “effect work” is a massive change to the leaked version of the film.
As for anything else, it is so very inside baseball that it’s nothing but geek masturbation.
In the AICN Talkbacks, the issue of the moral line that was so dramatically shifted at the site on the occasion of this leak, not running reviews based on the leak, was thrown up in the air again by allowing a piece about the difference – or the lack thereof – between the leak and the release version… a piece that required a close review of the illegal leak and the assumption on the part of the “reviewer” that they have a perfect memory of both versions, so as to compare.
The argument is made – as I have made in other contexts – that this is not a review of either version of the film, but a journalistic look at whether or not the leaked version was, in fact, substantially the same as the leaked version. And while I can understand and appreciate that position… the idea that it is okay for a screening that was obviously not meant to lead to public commentary of any kind to not only lead to comment, but to comment that, in effect, call Tom Rothman a liar, is the same kind of shit that has been the problem with AICN and sites like it forever.
What purpose is there in running this on AICN, other than to try to damage the movie’s box office take and to hurt Tom Rothman? There is no reasonable argument that it is empowering movie lovers, as any movie lovers who have watched the film have watched it through illegal means… and Harry Knowles has already made the argument that this is the case.
Of course, I would not be writing any of this had the AICN piece not leaked into what claims to be a legitimate source of business news, The Business Insider.
Not only are the stories on both AICN and on TBI misleading and poorly reported, but they are the start of a potential next wave of coverage that aggrandizes illegal behavior towards no good end. And when that ball starts rolling downhill, it quickly gets out of control.
I hope that cooler media heads will prevail. And I understand the irony that I am sitting here writing about it as I am asking others not to do so in future. Such is the nature of gossip.
Forget about who you like or don’t like in this fight… what is the right thing here? How can Fox defend itself from salacious spin without digging themselves a bigger ditch? Wasn’t it better when this all just quieted down and became what it really should be… a non-story in every way except for the danger of digital materials being shared outside of a trusted few?
ADD, 6:55p – Another factoid… the talk about matching running times is interesting, since the illegal leak has fake titles from one of the other X-Men movies on it. I, of course, have no idea of whether the titles for Wolverine will be the same length as those of what looks to be X3. But the running time of the film part, including opening credits, is about 1:40:30. So if you are trying to tag the film based on running time, one version versus the other, compare accurately.
I’ve been reading TBI for the past few weeks and its content is a bit more snarky and gossipy than I first imagined, considering that its format seems more legit business than straight snark. What’s the story behind the site?
Hey wait a minute. It is news. People (geeks) like me that have been following the Wolverine story know that it has been a troubled production.
Everyone knows there were reshoots. The scuttlebutt around the leak of the work print was that it was the original print. The one deemed “unworthy” that promted reshoots. I am very curious to know if that is true or not.
Special effects don’t count, I want to know, has the story changed? If it has, the leak in my opinion, isn’t as egregious. Who ever breaks that story of the leaked version compared to the theatrical is delivering key information.
Is Veritas a scumbag? No doubt, the a-hole starts his article by talking about all the waivers he had to sign just to simply break them.
But for everyone watching the Wolverine story from the beginning, the question about the content of the work print is important.
… but a journalistic look at whether or not the leaked version was, in fact, substantially the same as the leaked version.”
I think it’s pretty safe to assume that they are indeed exactly the same.
I have no doubt that if AICN wasn’t worried about their access to press screenings and legitimacy in the internet world, that they would be reviewing the bootleg. If McWeeny and Knowles claim that they don’t own bootlegs of other films, they’re lying. It’s that simple. They’re towing the line on Wolverine because they know they’d be getting bad press. So I don’t really care about the hypocrisy because its born out of a sense of survival, not idiocy.
Well, MDOC… should that be the standard? That you and others WANT to know? Because that opens the door pretty wide, no?
And the issue of “the scuttlebutt” is the worst part of it… why should a studio be in a position to be asked or to feel compelled to answer questions about the process of ANY film? Should they be explaining what they didn’t like about the director’s work… or should the director be complaining about the studio? How does this play out well for anyone but the fans who “want to know?”
And Krazy… they are, in fact, not exactly the same, as there is a ton of effects work not finished in the leak. And why would you assume anything like that anyway? Based on what?
I am not trying to bait either of you… but I am sincerely interested in how you see these issues.
Dave, as a journalist covering the entertainment industry, aren’t you at all bothered by the fact that Fox simply lied? I know you’ve taken other journalists to task for not making the right phone calls to check rumors, etc, but what’s the point of doing that sort of journalistic due diligence if you know you will not be just spun but flat out lied to?
a_loco, you wanna back that statement up?
“If McWeeny and Knowles claim that they don’t own bootlegs of other films, they’re lying. It’s that simple.”
Oh, I see. It’s that simple, eh?
It must be lovely to be able to make that kind of wildly inaccurate statement and know that you never ever have to prove it or back it up in any way, as if your “it’s that simple” is some sort of final arbiter on the subject.
And why, pray tell, am I involved in this conversation? What do I have to do with that article or that editorial decision? Hmmm?
I’m not remotely worried about my access to anything. Fox has never let me into press screenings, and they’re not doing so for “Wolverine.” So there’s that theory shot down. I didn’t review the workprint for the reasons I stated in public, and your conspiracy theories aside, I’d love to see any evidence to the contrary.
How lovely that Business Insider didn’t even mention my Huff Post/Film Threat piece that got this whole ball rolling. Basically, I noted on Tuesday that the official running time at AMC Theaters and Arclight were the same as the running time of the bootleg. Hence, Tom Rothman’s claim that the film was ten minutes shorter was, on its face, a untruth.
Having said that, I agree with Dave. As I said in my pieces, while Rothman was caught in a ‘lie’, it was a white lie and one that had to be told as the result of someone else’s illegal activity. Once the print leaked, Rothman and co had no choice but to scream to high heaven about how different the two versions were.
I must ask, should I feel a sense of accomplishment that stuff I’m writing more or less for fun is being widely read enough to be stolen or referenced without credit? It feels like a milestone of sorts.
Why is the tone and assumption by most people regarding this story that “Veritas” is telling the truth? I’ve not seen one single corroborating story yet(though they’ll likely start leaking out after the screening at Fox tonight). Does it occur to anyone here that “Veritas” is full of shit? When AICN updated the story after Veritas decided to respond to the talkbacks by cutting and pasting screen shots from the trailer that aren’t in the movie as proof that the work print is the finished product it was completely non-responsive to the comments. I think it’s just as likely that Veritas wanted to see a shitstorm of his own creation explode online. I guess we’ll find out soon enough.
The oddest point in all of this concerning AICN was the out of left field post by Harry stating that one of his characters had been potentially ruined, from what he saw from a preview.
It came off as having a motives for something to both cover for questions that he has viewed the work print, and justification for later trashing the finished film itself.
You’re right HoopersX. I made a point in my follow up piece to use a healthy helping of words like ‘allegedly’ and ‘apparently’, along with the occasional ‘if this is true’ tossed in for good measure. For all we know this guy could be lying, but I’m also somewhat sure that there would have been an official response had the AICN report been a complete fabrication.
Tofu – I have not seen the bootleg – never downloaded one in my life, and don’t understand the whole torrent business. But images of the movie action figure of Deadpool, along with images in the trailer of him looking just like that action figure and firing optic blasts like Cyclops, suggest a radically different take on the character.
Harry’s post on White Queen was surprisingly clueless. I barely follow the comics and even I know she can turn herself into hard diamond.
Official response from Fox
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/did-fox-tell-a-whopper-about-the-pirated-copy-of-wolverine.html
By the wat, the running time of the UK thratrical version is 107 minutes 15 seconds (very similar to the leaked version)
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/0F19F01390BAC413802575920053B0C9?OpenDocument
Sorry…. I made mistakes in the previous post…. Here is the correct
Official response from Fox
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2009/04/did-fox-tell-a-whopper-about-the-pirated-copy-of-wolverine.html
By the way, the running time of the UK theatrical version is 107 minutes 15 seconds (very similar to the leaked version)
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/0F19F01390BAC413802575920053B0C9?OpenDocument
“It must be lovely to be able to make that kind of wildly inaccurate statement and know that you never ever have to prove it or back it up in any way, as if your “it’s that simple” is some sort of final arbiter on the subject.”
this sentence irked me. you’re not wrong, but this is a political answer. This is Karl Rove. This is Bill Clinton asking what the definition of “is” is.
Saying “you have no proof” is not “i’ve never watched, owned, purchased, or reviewed a bootleg.”
This discussion is, at best, intellectually dishonest. Dave purchases and reviews bootlegs and passes it off as being acceptable because of a grander scheme. Every popular film website used to drive traffic with workprint/test screening/bootleg reviews.
Hell, noah on this very site reviewed a bootleg of Rob Zombie’s Halloween including deleted scenes and said he ‘forgot which version he watchd’ or some such nonsense.
Devin is up in arms over Fox “outright lying”, i can hear the gears turning as he creates an “anything goes” logic about film reporting.
“If the studio is going to lie, who cares what everyone else does?”
that’s the bummer Drew…. anytime AICN comes up you will get dragged through the mud. and that turd doesnt have to “prove” anything, he said it on a comment section on a blog. it must be true. i agree with dave on this one. why run a review that has so much to say about the workprint? i read that review and could feel the guy’s bitchiness coming through the screen. i saw the wp, kind of dug it and made me want to see it more but i was going to see it anyway. i’m sure we all were. it’s the first shot in the summer movie season, good or bad it’s an event movie and people will go workprint leak or not.
p.s. i love when drew drops by, thanks man. M/C is awesome by the way.
Dave,
Your responding in the message boards? Is the 30 days over? Glad your back! This dialogue is what I find most engaging about the Hot Blog experience.
Anyway to answer your question requires a bit of reflection. I’ll just be honest. I am guilty here of wanting as much information as possible about a project that interests me. It’s the heart of why AICN and CHUD (throw Devin a bone I’m there everyday as well) exist.
It is fair to point out that there is a line being crossed here. It is no different than thinking paparazzi are scum yet looking at the latest Britany underwear shot on idontlikeyouin thatway.com .
I am the consumer, I will see Wolverine in the theatre and buy the DVD maybe even the Blu-Ray. I don’t have much recourse if I don’t like the work. If I ignore it, there will be no more, I almost have to support garbage in the hopes it will be handed to another artist for a sequel that will result in a product I may actually enjoy. This is a conversation for another day.
We established it’s wrong on some level and I know it, now what? To answer you question about the studio’s response to on set issues, I want to give one reason why the issue of the workprint vs theatrical release is now a big part of the story. Blade Runner, Dominion, Star Trek TMP, Superman 2, even Watchmen have created the question , is there another product in a given project? Perhaps one I will find entertaining. It is fair to say the discussion on Wolverine has begun too soon, but as a consumer it becomes part of the equation. For example, I’ll pass on the initial Watchmen DVD for the expanded cut. Heck, Fox themselves got me with the X-MEN 1.5 DVD.
I have followed Wolverine from every stage of development (from a far of course) I remember reading the day the project was announced, the day the director was hired, I followed it closely. I searched for every rumor, scratched my head at what the Richrad Donner stuff meant. All that is to say that when the workprint is suddenly on the internet or news of the release print how can I turn away? Should I? There is no consequence to me, I’m not in the industry. I won’t try to argue it’s not wrong, but it’s there. The genie is out of the bottle.
2 things should happen.
1) Rothman spin is just that, it’s what I would have tried to say, but he shouldn’t comment beyond “We can confirm property was stolen, it’s a matter for the authorities”.
2)Veritas broke the law, he signed a non disclosure and violated the disclosure, AICN enabled his actions by publishing his comment. They know who Veritas is, turn over his email, have the FBI trace him back to his IP. To my knowledge the source of the leak has still gone unidentified. Take it out on Veritas. If your serious about stopping this, lawyer up Fox.
Well, MDOC, I wouldn’t agree that the genie is ever out of the bottle, as such. Fox is a business. Wolverine is a business. Studios that don’t work their movies until the work is done tend to fail… as Fox found on some of their product last year.
Rothman’s “spin” was 80% accurate… and 20% overreach… or so it seems… but he still knows more than most of us do. When he suggests that you are getting something in that download that is far from a finished product, he is 100% correct. And he is protecting his product.
It’s all workproduct until it’s in theaters. You want to know why there are multiple versions of “easter eggs?” It looks like it may well be because they already made a majority of the prints and just shot a new “easter egg” a few days ago. So does that new footage make Rothman “not a liar?” Well, if the standard – which I think shouldn’t be applied in the first place – holds, then it does. But as I say, when every step becomes “property” of fans and press, then every act is perceived as a response and the truth of making movies is that stuff changes on most films all the way to the last second. For the people making the movie, it is important dinner chat. For the consumer, it’s almost always irrelevant… except that some consumers NEED to know. But then there is the other truth… the group of people who NEED to know (or who download illegal leaks) is tiny when you are talking about movies like this that aspire to $50m+ openings.
Actually, Marychan, Patrick is mixing and matching what Fox has said. That quote, I believe, is from a recent Gavin Hood interview.
Patrick is another one who is playing the “gotcha” game with Tom Rothman.
In fact, Patrick has been picking the wrong side of arguments – usually picked up off of this blog… including this one – a lot lately.
Between this, and the defense of Fox over Watchmen, I have to wonder when Dave went into the Defend-Fox business.
I don’t see why such a defense was nessesary. If the head of the studio says that the movie will be signifigantly changed, not just in FX work, but in story as well – and it flat-out isn’t, it seems at the very least worth mentioning.
Sure, maybe he shouldn’t have had to comment on stolen material – but he DID, end of story.
On the AICN boards, the posters have served up several examples of Drew saying he’s downloaded bootlegs. Personally, I could care less. I have stuff I’ve downloaded. But come on Drew, it sounds like you be lying.
Story… I just believe in fairness… and there is a bit of overkill attacking Fox in Webworld these days. Hating Rothman is not an argument.
The movie IS significantly changed. There are lots and lots of unfinished effects, color timing, and sound issues in the leaked version. The one thing he said that is not true is that there would be 10 minutes of material in the film that is not in the leaked version.
Of course, we still have zero evidence of whether that was Rothman’s intention when he said it. And it is not what the studio has been telling people in the last week. As I wrote, I would tend to forgive him for that particular offense anyway. But if you choose not to, I can understand that… so long as you don’t overstate what he claimed.
“The one thing he said that is not true is that there would be 10 minutes of material in the film that is not in the leaked version.”
Which implies a change to the story – which is not there. I didn’t make the claim, he did. Nor am I hating on the guy – just pointing out the fact that he got caught in a lie. How is it overstating to simply point out the facts?