Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Warner Bros Tells Space Story, From The Bra Designers Who … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Don Jon’ 
Billy Crystal-Starring Comedy From Matt Nix & Larry … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Dancing With The Stars’ … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Man Of Steel’ 
Former Digital Domain CEO & Auditors Sued For Fraud By … 
ABC’s ‘Nashville’ Undergoes Production … 
CBS Wins Season & Ties Sweep In Demo; ABC Tops Adults … 
Alki David Agrees To End Name Games With Aereo And Barry … 
Next-Gen Xbox One Unveiled With Content Including … 
Embargoes are dumbass, and even more so when they involve matters of no consequence like showbiz. 
And still more so when the movie review at issue was positive like David Denby’s critique of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo in The New Yorker. In my opinion, no film reviewer should ever agree to embargoes because doing what the studios want is a slippery slope. It’s just a short hop to becoming part of Hollywood’s publicity machine. In this case, producer Scott Rudin is the biggest baby on the planet. (Remember how, when The Social Network began losing to The King’s Speech last awards season, he stopped attending every honoring ceremony including the Oscars? No class.) And Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Amy Pascal on the 
phone just now told me the studio has been “wrestling” with this since Friday night. Yet she couldn’t explain why these embargoes are even necessary or this villification of Denby, who happens to be my favorite film critic, is even warranted. I asked if the review is good. She answered that she’d heard it was. So what’s the problem? Heaven help us when the studios finally succeed in controlling all media… Here’s the letter which Sony sent out at 2 AM:
Dear Colleague,
All who attended screenings of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo agreed in writing to withhold reviews until closer to the date of the film’s worldwide release date. Regrettably, one of your colleagues, David Denby of The New Yorker, has decided to break his agreement and will run his review on Monday, December 5th. This embargo violation is completely unacceptable.
By allowing critics to see films early, at different times, embargo dates level the playing field and enable reviews to run within the films’ primary release window, when audiences are most interested. As a matter of principle, the New Yorker’s breach violates a trust and undermines a system designed to help journalists do their job and serve their readers. We have been speaking directly with The New Yorker about this matter and expect to take measures to ensure this kind of violation does not occur again.
In the meantime, we have every intention of maintaining the embargo in place and we want to remind you that reviews may not be published prior to December 13th.
We urge all who have been given the opportunity to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo to honor the commitments agreed to as a condition of having early access to the film.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Andre Caraco, Executive Vice President, Motion Picture Publicity
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
Embargoes are completely reasonable in exchange for seeing the film, in advance, for free. If you don’t like it then you can pay for a ticket to watch the movie like everybody else.
It’s not like they’re seeing the film for fun much of the time. They see the film to critique it for us. To let us know if it’s worth seeing. They see a lot of garbage and warn us about it, and good stuff to put it on our radar. Should the embargo been broken? Probably not, but sony should be grateful getting early positive buzz for a movie that many people see as unnecessary.
All this presupposition that people even still LISTEN to critics opinions. Even if they still matter, its only in aggregate – what the MetaCritic score or Tomatometer rating.
All this commotion over a review? Reminds me of what I witnessed on Thanksgiving. Four young people at our gathering (female college students, between 18/20) decided to see a movie. As they were leaving I asked them what they were seeing. They said Jack and Jill. I had to smile. These young people did not know (or would they have cared) that RT gave it a 4%. They probably didn’t know what “Rotten Tomatoes” even meant. They saw the previews and made their decision. Like at least 90% of the movie going public, they don’t make movie decisions by reading critics.
I think we can all agree those four women suffered for their ignorance.
They definitely had an agreement. Everything else is a rationalization to not keep your word. It’s simple.
Can’t really argue, so I agree. But then again… why make a big deal over it? Just deny him access to screenings in the future since he can’t keep that promise. Then, he can do his job without being beholden to the Studios.
“It’s not like they’re seeing the film for fun much of the time”
You’re right, they’re getting paid to do their job. And the distribs are often making the critics’ lives easier by giving them advance access IF they agree not to print it until the agreed upon date.
It’s just like video stores (those that still exist) who start renting the DVDs before their release date. They’re breaking thier word.
If you don’t like it, just don’t agree to it.
The only reason to print it early is to try and SCOOP your competition. Which is not the purpose of these screenings. If you want to a scoop, perhaps offer to pay for exclusivity of an ADVANCE-advance screening. See how well that goes over.
making the critics lives easier? WTF?
The early screenings are for the distributors’ convenience.
If the don’t want the reviewers to print the review till the 15th, don’t screen the freakin’ film till the 14th.
There. Wasn’t that simple?
Right on, Nikki. It’s so nice to see someone call bullshit on these strong-arm tactics. It’s like Kevin Smith’s recent diatribe against getting bad reviews from critics who get to see his movies for free.
Reviewers aren’t being given something for “free,” they’re publicizing the films, which is marketing money the distributor then doesn’t have to spend. And off hand, who would you say has earned more respect in American culture over the years: The New Yorker or Sony?
Who really cares what critics think, think for yourself and have your own opinion. Unless you work at a studio, then wait until you are told what you like and dislike.
People care about what reviewers say because for most viewers there are lots of films and not a lot of cash. So you want to at least have an idea that what your spending your 13 bucks on is worth it. It doesn’t mean you live and die by the word of a critic but if a film has a low rating on Rotten Tomatoes (i.e., the cumulative grade from critics across the country) then you take a bigger chance of wasting time and money.
The gravity of Andre Caraco’s press release is hysterical. Yes, it was wrong for Denby to renege on his promise to wait a week to publish his review, but Nikki was spot on: a film critic violating an embargo is of ZERO CONSEQUENCE. And God bless Amy Pascal, whose comment about the studio “wrestling” with this issue suggests her publicity department needs to chill.
Stop confusing me with the facts. Just because I agreed to hold my review until a certain date doesn’t mean anything. People honoring their agreements will certainly mean the end of the world.
Bullshit. They wouldn’t show you the film if they didn’t want you to see it and it should always — ALWAYS — be without condition. If they’re worried about bad reviews, then they should do what any studio does when they have a turkey on their hands — not preview it for reviewers.
The only reason they do any of this nonsense is because they want the reviewer in question to feel SPECIAL, and, as a result, might be more inclined to “like” the film.
Andre is a good guy just doing his job.
Denby, on the other hand, is a complete hack… If I’m aware of his reviews at all, it’s usually b/c they’re somewhat valuable as contra-indicators – if he likes a film, it’s usually worth skipping and vice-versa.
Anthony Lane is a fantastic writer. It’s too bad the New Yorker can’t get rid of Denby, who is dead weight.
Now I’m concerned about the film – if Denby likes it, it stands to reason that it’s not good. I’ll see it anyway b/c of Fincher, who made the Best Picture of 2010, regardless of the Academy’s preposterous selection.
Are embargoes stupid? Sure.
But Denby shouldn’t have agreed to one if he never intended to honor his agreement.
Critics needs to stop attending screenings with these requirements if they truly want them done away with.
Omni Consumer Products thank you for being a good little doggie. As Nikki says, fuck embargoes!
Objection.
Supposition on the prosecutors part.
Until Sony releases a signed piece of paper with Denby’s signature on it or an email from him then I do not take a Studio/Corporation’s word about anything it alleges against a citizen.
Denby is innocent until proven guilty people.
Or are you all Sony’s minions?
There doesn’t need to be a signed piece of paper. A common misconception among people are that contracts must be written to be valid, but in this case an oral contract would be fine. If they told him at the screening that a condition of attending was that he consent to the review embargo, by staying at the screening he “accepted” the terms of their offer and a binding contract was formed. The fact that these sort of agreements happen all the time would likely be enough evidence to support their claim, but I mean if other people there said that they were bound by a similar contract that would also help. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a legally binding and enforceable contract that David Denby/The New Yorker breached here…
The more important question, however, is what can they do given that he breached? I mean of course they could ban him from future screenings (but they could have done that whenever they wanted). They would have to prove some sort of calcuable damages in order to get money out of him, which here are very nebulous…Courts don’t like to award contract damages that are speculative. Thus this letter has zero impact because they aren’t going to sue, nor are they going to prevent David Denby or other New Yorker critics from going to their screenings because the publicity he can generate is too much for them to ignore (that is questionable, but New Yorker is still an influential magazine in some circles).
>>>but in this case an oral contract would be fine.
You lack history. Here’s some. “An oral contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.” — Samuel Goldwyn.
Sam Goldwyn was many things, but he wasn’t a lawyer…Getting a contract in writing is definitely smart as it bolsters your evidence that a contract was made, but contracts do not need to be made in writing to be legally binding. Oral contracts are completely legitimate (except in certain sale of goods cases covered by the Statute of Frauds in the UCC). If you told me, in seriousness, that you would pay me $100 for walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, and I did it, and then you didn’t pay me, you would have breached a legally binding contract. Proof is an issue, but technically it’s legally binding. This is basic first year of law school stuff…
chasgoosey… fun as theory is! “proof is an issue” is just the tip of the Brooklyn Bridge of BS you’re trying to sell us. Just look at your conditional, “in seriousness” is as easy to determine as sarcasm from a teenager.
If a studio is serious about placing conditions on pre-screening movies they should put it in writing. Practically speaking. And I strongly doubt you could find a judge to support your opt-out oral contract theory. “Hey you! If you sit down on that bench you must pay me $15.”
As Sam Goldwyn supposedly said: “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on”.
Unless Sony recorded him saying he agreed to an embargo, they have no chance.
But California is also a two party state, so recording Denby without notifying him of that in advance, Sony probably committed a felony!
Also, in this case it’s not like Sony couldn’t provide evidence of the oral contract. Every other journalist was subject to the same contract, if they testified that it was indeed the case that seeing the movie was offered in exchange for the embargo, that’s plenty of evidence.
Also, just read the review, its pretty good, but not the AMAZING review you want this early…
Hey chief — I know you’re real excited about being in law school, but maybe dial it back a bit. The comment to which you replied didn’t say anything about whether this might or might not be a legally binding agreement. The author simply said he wouldn’t believe what a Studio/Corporation alleges unless he sees it in writing. Fair enough. Maybe you think that’s silly. Maybe not. But did this warrant a massively geeky (and not entirely accurate) lecture from you about what (you think) constitutes a contract? Also, your grammar sucks. I know that’s petty, but you kind of earned it by being so annoying and pedantic.
There are three elements that must be present for a contract to exist: an offer, an acceptance, and consideration.
Offer
The first step to creating a contract is an offer. An offer is a written or spoken statement by a party of his or her intention to be held to a commitment upon the acceptance of the offer. There are a number of factors to look at to determine whether a statement constitutes an offer.
Acceptance
In order for an acceptance of an offer to be valid, the acceptance must be made while the offer is still open. There are two ways a person accepts an offer: by promising to do or not do something, or by performing the desired act.
Consideration
Consideration is a legal concept meaning something of value that is given in exchange for a performance or a promise to perform. Consideration can be money, goods, a promise to do something there is no legal obligation to do, or a promise to not do something there is a legal right to do. Promises to exchange money, goods, or services are forms of consideration. All parties in an agreement must give consideration in order to create a contract; it is consideration that distinguishes contracts from gifts.
That’s just criminal behavior. The guy should be thrown in jail for life. Life, I tell you.
So Denby agreed to seeing a film early in return for not publishing a review until a certain date and now he’s going back on his word and you’re defending him?
Don’t yap unless you know what you’re talking about. Half the time they tell people about the embargo as they turn the lights down at the screening room. I’m sure that with Rudin and Fincher, Denby knew about the embargo but they screened it for the New York Critics to try and get considered for their awards that just went out and they wouldn’t have complained if it won anything, which is pretty much the same as ignoring the embargo.
You’ve mistaken your sympathies for insider knowledge. 1. You’re not actually a witness to the events. 2. When the lights go down and the embargo is announced it is still not too late for a critic to get up and leave. If you’re going to concoct a fantasy about how Denby didn’t break his word at least make it logically consistent.
Despite its pedigree, I have no desire to see ‘Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’ because I already saw it, in Swedish, and don’t see why I would need to revisit this particular MYSTERY I KNOW THE OUTCOME OF.
A reputable good review might put it back on my radar, a good review in advance might put it more on my radar. The earlier, the better, because with so many films coming out in the next few weeks everything becomes noise. Anything to put something high on someone’s short list is positive.
STUDIOS: IF THE FILM IS GOOD, THE MEDIA IS YOUR FRIEND.
Based on your logic, there would be almost no market for this movie. The books were a giant bestseller, thus most people know THE OUTCOME OF THE MYSTERY (probably most people who saw the Swedish one did too). This isn’t a remake, it’s just another adaptation of the same novel…
Yes – I don’t see a gigantic market for this film. I see almost everything, I love David Fincher, and this is low on my radar because I am not in love with the franchise. It was uncomfortable, rape heavy, and the mystery didn’t blow my mind. I saw the “american adaptation” of “Let The Right One In” and respectfully found it completely unnecessary, especially with the recent wide release of the original, so why am I going to hand over $16.50 at the Arclight to see a story I didn’t love the first time?
This year I am low on time and highly backlogged on films. This film only has an audience in-so-far as a critically acclaimed David Fincher film will have an audience, and most of that audience is familiar with the franchise. My 17 year old niece, my mom and their friends in Tennessee are not familiar w/o it nor itching to see this film, but that doesn’t mean strong word of mouth wont get them there.
The only way to find natural audience (and my mom) is for it to have resoundingly good reviews – ERGO, a positive review breaking the embargo shouldn’t be punished by the studios, but celebrated as a relief.
Why would you not want to see David Fincher’s take on one of the most popular novels of the last decade? The man is a master and arguably the most talented director working today. Why even watch the original then since clearly its going to have the same ending too?
I watched the original because it came out first. DUH.
If you agree to something and then go back on your word, you’re a jerk. It doesn’t matter whatever you think about Rudin.
Because nobody in Hollywood ever goes back on their word.
And the woman answering questions doesn’t even know if the review is good or bad. In essence, she’s just the sell-out corporate scumbag that parroting what her nutjob conservative masters want. Sickening. On one hand, I think that if given proper warning, reviewers *should* keep their agreements. But to be honest, they’re buying themselves a whole ton of BAD publicity for a film over a GOOD rewiew that came out a few days early. Sony’s response prtty much clinched that I’ll be skipping this movie.
Well, your point may be accurate — people do go back on their word in Hollywood all the time — in fact it’s a matter of routine — but since when are breaches of ethics justified by their frequency?
That’s just a handy excuse to not be moral yourself. Well, everyone else in Hollywood lies, so I’ll go ahead and do it to.
Good luck with that.
Oh my God!
I just hit my head from bending over while laughing really hard!!!!!
Touche Fan! Great comment…….cause you know it’s true.
Yes, embargoes are dumbass, and doing an early review is not the end of the world and does not affect anyone’s life, but if you agree, then follow the rules, if not, stay out of the theater.
Just because Rudin is apparently a jerk, does not justify going back on your word.
I’m just not seeing Rooney Mara as Salander. I’m getting pretty tired of Fincher. He’s a very superficial director who is only obsessed with serial killer films. It’s tiresome.
3 out of his eight films are about serial killers, he’s hardly “obsessed”.
3 out of 8 of his film is still nearly half of his films being about serial killers. I think it’s safe to say Fincher is fascinated by serial killers.
Can’t wait to see Rooney as Lisbeth.
Rapace looked way too old. It’s the GIRL with the Dragon Tattoo, not the ANGRY FORTY YEAR OLD Woman with the Dragon Tattoo.
This is by far the best comment here.
No, it’s one of the worst, actually, because it’s so off-topic.
Nick, I’m sure Noomi Rapace will weep tears of blood over your dipshit comment…as she continues climbing those stairs to accept awards, accolades, and JOB OFFERS from top directors and top films, world-over.
Worst comment. Rapace is now 32, making her maybe 28 when she filmed. Mara is 26, close to the same age. Hollywood’s (and your) ageism against women is disgusting.
Apparently Rooney Mara rocks and is a lock for an Oscar nom.
The book was bad, the movie looks (much) worse, and I doubt that it will be getting any awards. And gee, I can say that without Sony trying to sue me (for now).
Rooney Mara for an Oscar nomination? I just threw up.
Haven’t you seen her accent dropping off in the trailer and her poor acting? Give me a break!
Studios do not let critics see films early, and free, to be kind. They do so because critics give them free publicity in return.
That said, if Denby agreed to the embargo — and apparently, he did — what exactly did he think he was proving by violating an agreement he entered into willingly? Let’s not lose perspective on either side: it’s only a movie, and it’s only a movie critic. It’s not national security, nor is it a reporter blowing the lid off abuses in national security. Unless Denby’s review contains something too important to wait — and I have no idea what that could be — his “scoop” was achieved merely by thumbing his nose at the studios and his colleagues. Hard to admire that.
This is completely spot on. Don’t forget, he’s not respecting his peers in this case. Everyone else is working to the embargo, but not him. It’s clearly as much of a comment on his peers as it is on everything else. I guess he feels like he’s above Dargis, Scott, Ebert, and the rest.
The publication that runs the review on Monday, clearly is aware of the embargo but they decided to ignore it, probably for publicity OR simply thinking they can get away with it. I’m with Nikki on this one, especially considering the film NEEDS some good early word ASAP, now that the Awards Season started … that is, IF the producers want awards and why wouldn’t they ? Another week of silence could result two other films getting stronger and closer to lock-status in the best picture race.
Every now and then, late entries make it (Million Dollar Baby, True Grit, The Fighter) and receive the oh-so-crucial best picture/best director nominations…but recently, those films were right up the Academy’s alley. A genre film, even an excellent one, NEEDS all the support it can get during the Awards Season…and the worst part about this story, that it seems to me, the studio has just turned down one of their supporters…David Denby.
Doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with review embargoes, like many posters that have already pointed out the obvious–Denby agreed to it, then broke the embargo. Being the first to break a review embargo on an anticipated movie only gets Denby and the New Yorker more web clicks and exposure. These tactics are just as underhanded as these embargoes.
It’s easy enough for the studio to fix this. Denby and his publication won’t see anything prior to the release date from here on out. So, hopefully he’ll get lots of good feeling for what he does this week, as it will be the last time he has the opportunity until the studio decides to invite him early again.
Totally disagree with you NIkki, and agree with the majority here: it’s not about whether it’s right or wrong for a studio to ask for an embargo; that’s a subject for another article.
The issue here is that he agreed to it and in exchange got to see the movie early, and for free. He gave his word and now he’s breaking it, and whether that’s a promise to a friend, a loved one or even a movie studio, it’s dishonest and disreputable. And liking or not liking Rudin has nothing to do with it. Nor is whether or not it’s a positive or negative review.
My question is this: has he given any reason why he felt the need to go back on his word and publish this review early? Is being the first to publish so important that he essentially may have guaranteed his publication that they won’t have access to any more early screenings?
And more to the point, why is his employer, one of the most reputable and distinguished magazines on the planet, allowing him to do it? Ultimately, they are the ones who have the final word, so why would they allow their reputation to be tarnished by their film critic?
Nikki, 9 out of 10 times, I agree with you but saying “what’s the problem, the review is good,” is missing the point entirely! What if the review Denby broke ranks with and elected to run was negative? That is NOT the issue. The issue remains the same either way irregardless of the content of the review and, while I too think highly of his criticism, as a filmmaker and human being, I now think much less of his character for signing a contract and breaking it… Embargoes and cow-towing to studio wishes may be a slippery slope, but you know what is even more slippery? Showing the world your word is worthless.
Dumb move, Denby!
All of your cogent points were negated due to your use of the word “irregardless.”
Good effort though, you were oh so close.
Truth be told, I felt the same way when I saw that word.
…and by ‘cow-tow’ instead of kowtow
Hold on, are you saying that because the letters “i” and “r” appeared in front of the word “regardless” you are now sympathetic to the other viewpoint, good insights and persuasive arguments be damned?
You’re joking here, right? Or are you just insane?
I’m disappointed that you let his incorrect spelling of “kowtowing” get by. Your comment is therefore also invalid.
Never got that far. Reading Irregardless caused my brain to turn off. It’s a mechanism my body has developed to keep my blood from boiling.
I agree with the others. So what if embargoes are dumbass? If you give your word you should honor it. It’s really not a vilification of Denby to point out that he broke his word. That’s just the truth.
To a certain degree I agree with avoiding US remakes of foreign films because they usually remove the bite and other elements that made the original film great; however, people always see plays that get revived and reinterpreted – directing and acting are the interpreted art forms in cinema. So we have to see what Fincher brings to a story that is more about the reasons behind the killings, not the whodunit.
As for Denby; he betrayed his word… Surprise, surprise, he’s a film critic. Disallow him from other screenings in the future. Problem solved. There needs to be consequneces to one’s actions. Our culture is too happy to rapidly accept mea culpas.
The whole fracas here raises an interesting conversation about the push-pull relationship between the press and content providers. The moral of this debate seems to be simple: studios should refrain from showing their work to ANYONE until they are 100% prepared for the word to slip out. It was much easier to control the spread of information 15 years ago, but with the rise of Facebook and Twitter, trying to keep a lid on preview screenings is like putting a bottle cap on a leaky dam. Whether it’s a test screening or a press screening, once that veil is lifted, you start losing control over management of buzz.
Also, maybe studio would be less tyrannical over early reviews if they simply MADE BETTER MOVIES. Just a thought.
Isn’t obvious here that we are the one’s being played here. David Denby & Amy Pascal are probably in on this together.
What Denby — and The New Yorker — did was loathsome. Haven’t you ever followed an embargo, like most journaliasts? How would you like it if The Wrap broke an embargo? You’d be screaming,right? For you to defend, of all people, David Denby, and of all magazines, Thw New Yorker (who, by the way, trashed you and looks down their nose at you) is indefensible.
Congratulations to you Andre for taking this stand and for putting this letter in writing. As a fellow journalist I always honor embargoes. Andre, I knew you when you started at Sony– and Congratulations to Sony for allowing your voice to be heard in this official memo to journalists which Nikki published.
Good or bad, right or wrong, what difference is two weeks going to make in this review being released or not? The film will get neither worse or better in that time. One critic’s opinion shouldn’t be able to sway the demographic to a point of detrimental effect in box office return. Sure, he shouldn’t have breached the embargo (I agree that they’re stupid) but Sony is making way more out of this than it really is for script that was basically translated and photocopied.
this probably has to do with The New Yorker only devoting two pages to film reviews and the amount of films coming out this time of year left no room to stand-by the embargo if they wanted to include reviews for other films coming out around the same time, especially if writers leave for winter breaks in December.
also, if a studio has ever not made a film available to critics for review because they knew they’d get hammered, then they have no right to complain about this kind of stuff.
” system designed to help journalists do their job and serve their readers.”
Good one. It’s designed to market a film. And if the studios are so worried about one of the “bad reviews,” MAKE BETTER MOVIES.
An agreement is an agreement. If a person voluntarily agrees to a verbal request then they have an obligation to honor that agreement; regardless of how ridiculous they believe the request. I still remember my grandparent’s simplest and best advice: “Always do what you say you’re going to do,” and “leave everything better than you found it”. They both work every time they’re tried.
Am I the only person to see this is just a marketing move?
Come on, they just trying anything to create a buzz about a pointless remake. ” A critic who let a good review out before anybody else”, right, good try.
Have you ever worked in or around a publicity department????? This is precisely a matter of National Security in their minds.
Most, but not all, publicists are nuts, so it does make sense that they would over react in this way. I used to work in publicity, so I know how crazy they are but thank God I got out of that and got a real job!
Amen Nikki! It takes a pro to take not only the studios to task for their Draconian power over movie news sites, but to take the sites to task as well. None of these whippersnapper sites like First Showing and Slashfilms have the cojones to step on publicists toes now and again, if ever. Not only do studios tell movie sites when to review their releases, down to the hour, they tell them when they can and cannot post posters and trailers for chrissakes! It shows how far they have succeeded when Sony publicly takes The New Yorker to task for a good review. What would we do without Nikki and the Deadline team? Keep keeping the ass kissers at bay. Truth will always win. Sad that many of today’s movie writers are nothing but marketing sheep awaiting the next free dinner and happy meal toy.
No one has explained the point that Nikki very right raises — what is the point of the embargo at all? Is there a point other than the studio’s attempt to control all media about its films? And, if so, why should others be required to go along?
I don’t have a problem with a publication date whatsoever. And I DO think there’s a valid point regarding a studio’s desire of a specific date.
At the most basic level, the studio does not want reviews published too far BEFORE the release date, because they believe they effectiveness of any review relates directly to the closeness of the film’s release date. Since they don’t have control or what the critic is going to say, good or bad, they’d prefer to have everyone publish at the appropriate time that will best get public opinion started.
If the prevailing opinion is that an embargo is dumb or will not work, then it’ll be easy enough for the studios. Simply don’t show your film until the week of the release date. If the critics don’t wanna show good faith then so be it. But all this other stuff is pure rationalization for the critic that breaks an embargo. It’s weak in every way. And if the embargo is broken, just watch all the other critics and bloggers fall like dominoes, publishing immediately after, and then rationalizing it away.
Everyone is so weak willed. Grow some stones for crying out loud.
Her “point” is explained right there in the press release:
“By allowing critics to see films early, at different times, embargo dates level the playing field”
Since they can’t show the movie at the same time to every critic in the nation, they stagger the showings over the course of a week or two, with the explicit understanding that no one will release their reviews until the same set date. This is supposed to prevent critics that attend earlier screenings from scooping other critics who attended the later ones, and the complaints of favoritism and unfairness that would obviously follow. This same thinking is behind street dates for dvds, books, and video games, which are put in place so no one store or chain can get the drop on their competition by selling product early which they were lucky enough to receive before anyone else due to the realities of the shipping process.
Whether you agree with this system or not, Denby was aware of the embargo when he walked into that theater. By breaking it, he’s not only going back on his professional word, he’s crapping on his colleagues kept theirs and withheld their reviews. If I were the major studios, I would blacklist his ass from all future screenings. If he wants to review a movie in the future, let him pay for it on opening day like everyone else.
Are you defending The New Yorker because they did such a great story on you? If I recall, the story trashed you. Right?
And you’re defending them?.