Runar_R

(Hope I'm in the right forum for this subject....)

Don't know if you've read it yet, but it seems some A-hole has released a working print of one of the most anticipated summer-movies out on the net. People has started to write 'reviews' of this working-print, and naturally they're not very positive. (after all it's more fun to tear down than to build..... ). I personally think it's idiotic to review anything based on a 'work in progress' print (I don't even think it's a good idea to hold early screening to measure public response), and the guy who leaked the print in question should be hit by a lawsuit. But what I do have a problem with, is a site like aintitcool trying to get on a high moral ground and tell people who gets involved with this to 'be ashamed'. Aintitcool is probably the main reason why so many people are interested in getting pre-release images/screeners/scripts or other info about movies. It's been practically built on inside people in the movie-biz breaking written contracts by smuggling out stuff to be reported on the site. Aintitcool hypes this, describing these unfaithful employees as 'spies' and 'moles' and other 'cloak and dagger' BS. Not to mention the fact that they have themselves reviewed early drafts of scripts, and working prints of movies. And usually cut them to shreddes. It made it's name on trashing an unfinished cut of 'Batman and Robin' for crying out loud! (I know, it deserved to be trashed. That's not the point).

So what do you guys think? Is it a case of pot-kettle-black, or am I waaay off? Can Aintitcool both fight piracy AND still report on the 'exclusive early look' on movies/scripts?

\"These are the moments I live for.
I put up with all the other crap just to get seconds like this.
The moments when you know the world is a better place than advertised.\"
-Planetary, Warren Ellis

Jeff Kleist

See, here's the difference. Except for when Harry was shown Episode 2, 90% of AICN's "leaks" and "secret previews" are planted there by studios.

In this case, it's a leaked workprint, and given the severe alterations present in the trailer, I personally wouldn't have minded a script peak to see how badly they blasphemed. as it is, I'm going to the bargain show, or possibly even waiting for video because of severe unneccessary alterations to Hulk.

Glenn Overholt

No, they are nuts. I"m still waiting for a huge sting operation to get set up with a major release on some bootlegged stuff.

Here's to hoping that it will take everybody down, and maybe not stop it alltogether, but yank it down so many notches on the 'cool things to do' list that no one in their right minds would ever try it again.

Glenn

JustinCleveland

This is the same Ain't It Cool that DROOLED over the bootlegged print of Episode II? Pathetic.

Sam Davatchi

I agree that their post is hypocrisy!

Gary->dee

Yeah it seems like ass-backwards logic to me coming from AICN, not that I am in any way condoning bootlegs. I'm into screeners not bootlegs. :wink:

I'm trying to figure out if:

1) Mory/AICN are just mad because they haven't seen the bootleg

2) If given the chance would Mory/AICN watch the bootleg. I'm guessing yes. Afterall, why would Hulk be any different than Episode 2?

Furthermore, in reading Mory's diatribe was he condoning bootlegs only if you give an entirely positive review? If you criticize anything about a rough cut is that bad? A bit confusing to me.

I bet if Harry or Mory had been presented with an exclusive peek of the bootleg by whoever it was that leaked it there would be a 25 paragraph review up right now.

aint-it-cool-to-be-a-hypocrite

MikeAlletto

Except in those 25 paragraphs only 1 would talk about the actual movie.

Michael Alletto

Gary->dee

Of course. The first 10 paragraphs are for dredging up the obligatory Phantom Menace and Episode 2 mentions, add a Star Trek 2 reference mixed with dashes of North By Northwest to put Brucer Banner's peril in cinematic perspective, add infinite amounts of personal history with the Hulk comics and comic books in general that later became movies... they have a template for these things. Just fill in the blanks with the current title being reviewed.

Adam Lenhardt

You forgot the obligatory 200 words about Bill Bixby and Lou Fereigno.

Dan Rudolph

And the story about what he had for lunch and who else was at the theater with him.

My Collection

Gary->dee

Oh yes, 5 or more paragraphs on the original 70's TV show and how Also at least 2-3 paragraphs on Ang Lee's previous movies.



Wouldn't be complete without it.

Scott Weinberg

Glad to see I'm not the only one who read this report with a stunned look of disbelief. Talk about a textbook case of bullshit hypocrisy.

Plus if they really CARED so much about the integrity of the filmmakers and whatnot...why would they publish WHERE you can download it from?

To me it looks a whole lot like 'laying blame elsewhere to try and make yourself look good' schtick. AICN has been ruining movies for years. The balls they display with this column are unparalleled.