Aintitcool VS movie-piracy (1 Viewer)

(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?

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.

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

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

I agree that their post is hypocrisy!

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 :rolleyes

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.

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

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

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.

Anyone remember Joe Hallenbeck?

If Harry is against piracy he can let it be known he wont put up such reviews.

But he wont,he prefers the hits on his website. I remember 2 reviews came out about 2 months before X-Men and they torn that movie up - again it was a unfinished VHS copy they reviewed.

Screeners are different though. I used to have access to screeners from a friend who owned a video store. Theyre illegal to sell, but I dont see the problem with reviewing a screener. Actually when the Batman Beyond fiasco started, I had sent a review both to AICN and here in HTF becuase I had seen the film 2 months before it was slated to be released and then it was delayed and cut for violence.So there was alot of questions about the material being cut,and I had the tape.

I dont know if its the studios planting those stories. People always find a way to bootleg.

When I was a kid - my friends father worked for a movie theater and I had a copy of Empire Strikes Back the week it was released. This was back in 1980 and the technology is much better now for such things.

btw, Harry has posted his thoughts on the subject, that is more reasoned than Moriarty's diatribe (for some reason it feels odd writing that, as though I mixed up their names).

For what it's worth, the AICN reporters are just as legitimate journalists as Scott Weinberg (who has been ruining movies for years, hey that comment made a lot of sense!), and journalists are usually allowed to see a film early so they can review it. Now the inbred space monkeys that inhabit the talkback habitat and send in quite a few of the 'reviews' from test screenings are a whole different story. That is who Moriarty's comments are addressed to, he's not a hypocrite, but a legitimate journalist who obeys press embargos and writes more interesting to read reviews than the paint by numbers stuff you find in rags like EW.

But of course because the audience AICN caters to does not rigidly comply with HTF demographics all at HTF must scream their hatred of the website for not being expressly made for them.

Piracy of movies like the Hulk is stupid and should be stopped. Moriarty didn't tell anyone where they could get the movie because I'd guess better than 90% of the laymen that read that site knew exactly where to get it. all he did was draw attention to the fact that it was available (stupid). However, by dropping those particular names, he just brought down the wrath of the studios on those services/software, and this may be the beginning of the MPAA bringing down the Kazaa behemoth the way the RIAA brought down Napster.

There is an enormous difference between a journalist getting a scoop and someone stealing a product.

Adam

You do bring up some valid points Adam_S. But as I read Moriaty's article I came away with the feeling that his problem was not with the fact that illegal copies are spread around (which really IS something to get angry about), but the fact that people are spreading bad reviews based on this work-in-progress print. Which is something Aintitcool has done for nearly 10 years now. As for your comment sbout Moriaty's legitimacy as a journalist, a site like Aintitcool does not get it's popularity from the reports from 'legitimate' journalist like Moriaty, but from the 'spy-reports' from un-legitimate sources. That is, people who in one way or another ( quite often I guess by breaking written contracts) get their hands on something that is NOT intended for public showing. Aintitcool actively encourages these acts. People have always swapeed/sold bootleg-copies of movies or music, but I feel Aintitcool has a big part of the blame for the interest in unfinished work on a movie, be it working-in-progress-prints or scripts or whatever. They are the one spot that is pushing that type of material more than any other site on the net. If they hadn't done it first, someone else probably would have. But since they are the major player in this particular scene, they maybe should consider that they might be hurting the movie-industry by generating this much interest in production-material, and that they might be more than a little responsible for working-prints of movies getting spread on Kazaa etc......

funny how I would bet 90% of the people here and elsewhere who voice their concerns over people downloading movies are the same people downloading and 'ripping' off musicians every day

I don't think the point is the "downloading" that we're trying to make here, it's the hypocrisy of a site that feeds on the very thing they're condemming.

I am with Runar... I walked away from the article with the impression that Mor. was mad people were judging the film by an incomplete print, not that he was against piracy, on which his site is based.