• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Harry Knowles says LETTUCE is killing the FOOD INDUSTRY and TWINKIES are THE FUTURE!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Willco

Hollywood Square
Courtesy from AICN, of course.

Now this, moreso than his newfound imdb Producer filmography, is proof to me that Harry Knowles has indeed sold out. Not that I'm against 3D films, and while he brings up some valid points, he comes across sounding like a Hollywood suit, especially when he makes some of the more asinine statements in this post.

(Also, the statement that he's sacrificed thousands to keep AICN afloat is laughable. That site is a license to print money practically, with the industry exposure and whatnot. And also, they're not flashing random McD's banner ads -- someone is pumping film marketing budgets into that site)

On to our show (now in THREE DEE!)...

Harry and all this hubbub regarding 3D!

Hey folks, Harry here in Austin to address all this hubbub about 3D filmmaking. Well - where to begin? Ok - I'll start here. Film is dying. And frankly, we're the reason. The internet. I love the internet, I've sunk untold thousands into AICN out of my inheritance, my book deal - I've written articles for foreign publications just to keep the lights on here at AICN, and I love all of you. However, online piracy is a very bitter reality. Having said that... this isn't the first threat to film. Radio pulled people out of theaters, the industry reacted with sound. At that time, sound scared filmmakers to death. I know it's hard to believe, but there was a great deal of resistance to it, the theaters had to get expensive equipment. It completely changed how movies were made. But soon there was no going back. Then there was television. Suddenly with visual entertainment in homes, audiences dropped off. The industry responded with many of their films coming in color. Television went that route too, then we got CINEMASCOPE. Theaters had to change the shape of their screens... hell, in many cases new theaters were built just for the format. Around this time, 3D came in too. However, the dual projectors was often times seen as too expensive to implement - so the RED & BLUE cheapo route came about - and it gave 3D a bad name.

Now - there's still a drawback with the Polarized 3D... and that is that the tint of the glasses due to the polarized lens makes for a slightly darker image. Good 3D theaters (like the Alamo Drafthouse) prepare by using more powerful bulbs and the silver screen. The result? Fucking incredible! If you've never seen great 3D, then you really should remain silent in this debate. Go find an IMAX 3D theater and see ANYTHING showing. Then you'll have a clue what the buzz is about.

3D has always been capable of looking this good. It's just been expensive. The greatest change that has occured recently is this camera that James Cameron had a hand in creating. I got to see it in use on Robert Rodriguez's SPY KIDS 3-D. Not only that... but I got a glimpse at an experimental monitor used to watch it being filmed. It was a rear-projection HD-3D screen about 60" in size. Now - I sat there with them cool glasses watching that screen for HOURS - zero eye-strain. So, what this means is - in addition to theaters having this capability - you'll eventually be able to have it at home. And folks... It is truly astonishing.

Now - with the capacity to render the 3D process upon vintage films... That raises all sorts of ethical questions. When Cinemascope came about - MGM cut the top and bottom off the prints of GONE WITH THE WING, Disney did the same with FANTASIA, SNOW WHITE, PINNOCHIO - and made these films "Now In Cinemascope". Frankly - this was wrong. Now - do I want to see all 6 STAR WARS movies in 3D? Yes. Is there a wild hair to see WIZARD OF OZ, GONE WITH THE WIND, ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, CASABLANCA, KING KONG in 3D? Frankly, honestly? I kinda do, but that's not what was intended. BUT - we do have DVDs where the sound on these classics have been... 'dimensionalized' and even on the DVDs that offer the original Mono tracks... which version do you listen to?

I have to admit to wanting to see future films shot with 2 eyes for dimensional story-telling. One thing is certain... it will stop piracy - as long as there is no home delivery system for the format. It will stop video camera capturing of film images. I read an article the other day that said the Hong Kong film industry has nearly been destroyed by piracy. That budgets are shrinking as investors no longer see adequate profitability due to the vampiric piracy industry.

At Butt-Numb-A-Thon 6 last year, I screened Ms Sadie Thompson starring Rita Hayworth. The audience gasped at the beauty of the 3D. They watched with polarized glasses - and watched Rita intoxicate every man, woman and child in the theater. It was something to behold. With these new projectors that can from one projector send out two different images at the exact same time - for Polarized Lenses - at a brightness intensity double that of regular projection... with the ability to retrofit old films for Re-Run capabilities... - this could very well be the answer Hollywood needs. As a huge fan of 3D, I'm excited by this. I mean - haven't we all had that conversation about what will film entertainment be like in 300 years? Will it be what we've always seen - or will it have the seeming intimacy of live theater - with the grandeur and scope of film productions? Will we plug into complete reality emulators that fool our brain into TOTAL RECALL adventures? In the short term, I think Lucas, Cameron, Jackson, Rodriguez and Zemeckis have it right. I think 3D is the future - and the answer to many of the threats. Just think... no more celphone seizures, no more pat-downs before screenings. A perfect pirate-free entertainment system! Sounds good to me. Besides - nothing is geekier or cooler than making everyone where glasses. We'll turn everyone into a geek!
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
CLIFF NOTES:

INTERNET IS KILLING THE FILM INDUSTRY.

AICN COSTS HARRY MONEY TO MAINTAIN.

PIRACY WILL BE THE RUIN OF US ALL.

3D IS THE FUTURE.

3D FILMS WILL MAKE MOVIES UN-PIRATABLE.

3D FILMS WILL ELIMINATE PIRACY ON COMPUTERS.

3D FILMS WILL BE IN THE HOME, EVENTUALLY.

SUCK JAMES CAMERON'S DICK.

SUCK ROBERT RODRIGUEZ'S DICK.

???

PROFIT!!!
 
His history is incorrect, but he is correct in saying that 3D could potentially limit piracy for awhile. However, the film industry is not in enough danger to adopt such measures at this point.
 
When you think about it he's talking about the same thing that the arcade industry did in the 90's. Home games had advanced to the point where nobody saw any compelling reason to go to arcades anymore. So you saw games like DDR, Virtua Cop, etc. springing up that featured an experience you could only get in the arcade.

His reference to Cinemascope and such illustrates that progression. In an age when people are downloading perfect movies and projecting them on their home theater systems, you have to find some way to get people going back to the theaters.
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
I glanced over that earlier and well, Harry doesn't know shit about the history of cinema or television. He's incredibly misguided about how, why and when these developments occurred, and especially when they reached anything nearing mainstream acceptance.

He's an absolute blind idiot. He doesn't understand the ramifications of anything he discussed in that article.
 

shuri

Banned
This is Harry Knowles, the guy who used started his site by reviewing pirated copies of movies provided by a guy who later got busted by the FBI for selling high quality dvd and vhs copies of his movies at cartoon conventions.

3D in movies is a novelty gimmick that failed in the '50, '60, '70' and '80 when desperate producers tried to generate interest in their z-grade movies.

see: Halloween 3D and Amitieville 3D

edit: maybe he was high on medications when he wrote that. I have no idea how someone with such a big site could write something like that. I've been browsing his site forever, and this is reaching Blade 2's review and Moriarty rant about the leaked workprint of Hulk in terms of all time aicn articles.
 
Dan said:
He's an absolute blind idiot. He doesn't understand the ramifications of anything he discussed in that article.

Yep.

Naked Shuriken said:
3D in movies is a novelty gimmick that failed in the '50, '60, '70' and '80 when desperate producers tried to generate interest in their z-grade movies.

Another yep. I tried to argue this in the "Star Wars in 3D" thread, and somehow people interpreted such criticisms as hating Star Wars. :lol
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Kobun Heat said:
When you think about it he's talking about the same thing that the arcade industry did in the 90's. Home games had advanced to the point where nobody saw any compelling reason to go to arcades anymore. So you saw games like DDR, Virtua Cop, etc. springing up that featured an experience you could only get in the arcade.

His reference to Cinemascope and such illustrates that progression. In an age when people are downloading perfect movies and projecting them on their home theater systems, you have to find some way to get people going back to the theaters.

Uh, that's not the case. The film industry is not dying. Total film gross has been up for many consecutive years and in 2004 alone there were 23 films that crossed the $100 million mark.

Plus, who is downloading perfect movies and projecting them in their home theatre systems? Really, who? Because I have not yet seen one pirated movie in any kind of setup whatsoever that rivals the theatre experience. For most people, the movies downloadable on the Internet are not high quality and the mainstream PC user does not have the technical capacity or know how to rip or receive a high quality, pirated movie.

Harry is just an idiot.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Also, does nobody find it funny that ever since Harry Knowles and Drew McWeeny (aka Moriarty) got real jobs in the film industry that they've been pro-industry on almost every movie industry debate/topic/controversy?

HULK PRINT RUINS ANG LEE! 3D WILL FIGHT PIRACY! INTERNET IS KILLING THE INDUSTRY! BLADE IS A VAGINA (WTF?)!
 
Willco said:
Also, does nobody find it funny that ever since Harry Knowles and Drew McWeeny (aka Moriarty) got real jobs in the film industry that they've been pro-industry on almost every movie industry debate/topic/controversy?

It's not so funny when you consider that so many youthful geeks will follow Harry's every word. :(
 

shuri

Banned
Years ago, Harry reviewed a script, saying how awesome it was, and how it was fresh and so on. Until someone found that the script was written by .. Moriarty, another updater on the site.

And let's not remember the bizzare ultra positive reviews of c-grade titles like The Faculty, that mtv reality movie in Cancun, and I'm sure we could go on for hours.
 
And has Harry posted the King Kong Q&A yet!? He was supposed to post it in like September, but I have yet to see it. I'll give him credit, he will occassionally do something cool for fans.

BUT WHERE THE HELL IS THE DAMN KONG Q&A
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Duck of Death said:
It's not so funny when you consider that so many youthful geeks will follow Harry's every word. :(

To me, AICN is more of an archive to show Harry's transition from a cinephile to a Hollywood suit, and if anyone is going to do anything he says, then they can go crawl under a rock. And die. From cancer.

I'm not saying the film industry is evil, because the likelihood of myself worming my way into the industry in the immediate future is fairly high, and despite their best efforts, Hollywood has not completely destroyed my faith in the system.

But it is an entertainment industry that has become increasingly bloated and needs some new solutions to new problems, or faces stagnation beyond the current fad of making sequels to remakes.

So if Harry and Drew think that because they get to wear a suit and tie to work and make movie magic, that they're entitled to tell us how it is because Paramount pays their bills now, they can go fuck themselves.
 

shuri

Banned
Duck of Death said:
And has Harry posted the King Kong Q&A yet!? He was supposed to post it in like September, but I have yet to see it. I'll give him credit, he will occassionally do something cool for fans.

BUT WHERE THE HELL IS THE DAMN KONG Q&A

I dont think he did. But instead enjoys his monthly dvd picks were he tries to out-obscure himself every month with unknown black and white noir genre films.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Naked Shuriken said:
I dont think he did. But instead enjoys his monthly dvd picks were he tries to out-obscure himself every month with unknown black and white noir genre films.

:lol

I swear, sometimes it's like he trys to justify his mainstream picks by going on imdb and searching for the movie with the least votes on there.

"WHEN I WAS NINE AND AT THE CIRCUS, FATHER GEEK AND I STOPPED BY THE LOCAL SALOON & THEATRE AND SAW ONE OF THE MOST UNDERAPPRECIATED FILMS OF ALL TIME. IT IS A TRUE GEM AND A FILM THAN ANY FILM LOVER SHOULD SEE, AS IT DEFINED THE BAR AS IT EXISTS TODAY [INSERT PLUG HERE]."

Although I have on good authority that he does know his shit, but can be quite arrogant nowadays.
 
How has the guy sold out? I doubt he makes much money and time and time again he'll not like something that is popular in other reviews. He DOES pander to his friends films and loves to rate them highly. Remember that his site isn't a beacon of professional journalism but is really just a movie news and information fan page. Treat it as such. I've never given Harry a dime of my money and its unlikely hes profited at all from me visiting the site.

The internet isn't killing movie revenue, but friends of mine DID manage to download the DVDs of Finding Nemo, Shrek 2, and Dawn of the Dead about a month and a half after those films were released in theaters. In those cases I think the studios are stupid to even have DVDs of their movies hanging about that soon after release. This sort of shit is certainly cutting into their profits.

The future of movies is to get extremely high resolution images up on screen. TV is going to be locked at a maximum of 1920x1080 for the next 20 years or more. If the theater can project something in the 5000x2500 range without grain, scratches or blemishes at an increased physical size movies at the theater will remain spectacle for a long time to come.
 

shuri

Banned
Willco said:
:lol

I swear, sometimes it's like he trys to justify his mainstream picks by going on imdb and searching for the movie with the least votes on there.

"WHEN I WAS NINE AND AT THE CIRCUS, FATHER GEEK AND I STOPPED BY THE LOCAL SALOON & THEATRE AND SAW ONE OF THE MOST UNDERAPPRECIATED FILMS OF ALL TIME. IT IS A TRUE GEM AND A FILM THAN ANY FILM LOVER SHOULD SEE, AS IT DEFINED THE BAR AS IT EXISTS TODAY [INSERT PLUG HERE]."

Although I have on good authority that he does know his shit, but can be quite arrogant nowadays.

My friend ordered this movie that Harry recommended; "They call her one eye: a cruel picture". It was yet-anoter obscure swedish movie that Harry recommended, saying that Tanrantino based the character of California Mountains (Hannah) on the movie. He kept talking about how it was a great action movie with awesome shots, bla bla bla best movie evah.

My friend ordered the special edition dvd for an obscene price, it ended up costing him 50$+ US for it.

The movie was the most vicious, unwatchable garbage we have ever scene. Terrible acting, UNEXPECTED 10 MINUTES WTF HARDCORE PORN SCENES that looked spliced into the movie (complete with full penetration + moneyshot deal) featuring the main girl from the movie, and the shittiest slowest action scenes ever. The girl killed about 7 people in the movie, but everytime she shoots/stabs someone, it goes in the most slowest slow motion mode that it was possible to do at the time, i swear. It was cool the first time, but damn it was painful. The girl was somewhat cute and nude most of the movie, but it's still one of the worse movie I've ever seen.

But I can totally see the connection to Kill Bill, tho. Still the movie was a piece of garbage. Damn you Harry Knowles! :lol
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Warm Machine said:
How has the guy sold out? I doubt he makes much money and time and time again he'll not like something that is popular in other reviews.

You haven't been reading have you? First of all, Harry Knowles has used the site to become a producer. He's an official Hollywood producer and everything. He makes a shitload of money. That's not including the ad revenue he makes off the site. He's not running shitty ads for dot.com's or McD's, he's running ads (for the most time) for feature films all over the fucking site. He's making more than enough to maintain that site.

That's not including his best-selling book based off the site that came out a couple of years ago.

Then he used the site and his connections to get Drew McWeeny several jobs, despite the fact that objective folks claim he's a rather mediocre writer.

Doesn't make much money? Not a sellout? Get real.

He DOES pander to his friends films and loves to rate them highly.

Yes, but...

Remember that his site isn't a beacon of professional journalism but is really just a movie news and information fan page.

Except you just told me he panders to his friend's films and rates them highly. I'm not asking for journalism, but if you're going to claim to be an objective source of industry knowledge, then you better damn well be objective. Harry says he has the fan's best intentions at heart and pandering to your Hollywood friends is not really helping anyone.

Treat it as such.

So you want us to treat it as soapbox for Hollywood suits to tell us about movies and people they're likely to work on now? Okay. If not, I'm not sure what you're getting at. The site itself is not the news scoop center of the industry it was in years past, and whereas the Harry of old would've posted something regardless if it made someone upset, he has publically said that he's sat on information since his corporate sellout days.

I've never given Harry a dime of my money...

That's great.

and its unlikely hes profited at all from me visiting the site.

Unless you have a browser that manages to turn off all the advertisements that are on every page there, Harry Knowles has profited from your visits.

Naked Shuriken said:
My friend ordered this movie that Harry recommended; "They call her one eye: a cruel picture". It was yet-anoter obscure swedish movie that Harry recommended, saying that Tanrantino based the character of California Mountains (Hannah) on the movie. He kept talking about how it was a great action movie with awesome shots, bla bla bla best movie evah.

My friend ordered the special edition dvd for an obscene price, it ended up costing him 50$+ US for it.

The movie was the most vicious, unwatchable garbage we have ever scene. Terrible acting, UNEXPECTED 10 MINUTES WTF HARDCORE PORN SCENES that looked spliced into the movie (complete with full penetration + moneyshot deal) featuring the main girl from the movie, and the shittiest slowest action scenes ever. The girl killed about 7 people in the movie, but everytime she shoots/stabs someone, it goes in the most slowest slow motion mode that it was possible to do at the time, i swear. It was cool the first time, but damn it was painful. The girl was somewhat cute and nude most of the movie, but it's still one of the worse movie I've ever seen.

But I can totally see the connection to Kill Bill, tho. Still the movie was a piece of garbage. Damn you Harry Knowles! :lol

:lol

That's how I felt when he salivated over Episode II and told us all Star Wars was back...
 
Willco get off your soapbox.

Do you actually think the goal of AICN was for Harry to work his way into film production?

Harry is a fan boy who runs a fan boy site. The site is there to recommend movies and provide information on them from the perspective of fan boys. They are not selling anything themselves aside from Harrys book which is a collection of writings from a fan boy which you will or will not buy depending on whether or not you think there is any value in it.

Is Harry actually accountable for anything he writes or the information the site provides? Is GAF because it amounts to the same thing. Does GAF make money from me coming here and reading the message boards for information and news? Seeing an ad on Harrys site doesn't persuade me to go see a film. What makes me want to see a film is me reading about it from various sources and being familiar with the people involved in its creation. Do you know how many websites out there movie studios advertise on? Do you remember how long it took for AICN to actually get any company to advertise on there in the first place. I have been going there since 97 and I only started seeing ads on there in and around 2000. He HAS sunk his own money into it.

If Harry automatically gets revenue from the ads on his site by me going there to leech information that I choose to do with as I please then I guess by my prescence on the site I do make him money.

Just because the guy has a site doesn't mean his is forever forced to be shackled to it for the rest of his life and never do anything else even if given the oppurtunity.
 

shuri

Banned
There's a difference between being a fanboy, and being a fanboy who uses his reputation to hype his friends movies. He once said on a uk tv show that he could make or destroy the vibe about a movie as he wished
 

ManaByte

Member
3D in movies is a novelty gimmick that failed in the '50, '60, '70' and '80 when desperate producers tried to generate interest in their z-grade movies.

Digital 3D now is a lot different than the cheap 3D gimmicks of 30 years ago. Apparently Cameron, Rodriguez, and Lucas' digital 3D presentation blew people away at ShoWest:

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=19681

So along with James Cameron and the previously mentioned film making heavy weights, Lucas is on a crusade to bring 3-D to theaters everywhere, and not just in a "Comin' At Ya" novelty sort of way. We're talking quality movies presented in 3-D through digital projection. Now this could be a tricky proposition as the theater industry is perfectly content with the way things are, and there are plenty out there who aren't too fond of the whole 3-D gimmick. Hell, even Roger Ebert has said in the past that he isn't really into the 3-D thing (although he did give a very favorable review to James Cameron's recent Ghosts of the Abyss). If Ebert were able to see what we saw at this presentation, I guarantee his opinion would be greatly altered.

Lucas and Cameron presented a couple of promo reels demonstrating digital 3-D. Included--the first eight minutes of A New Hope transferred into the 3-D format. What can I tell you? No words can describe it. The quality of what we saw was staggering. In many ways, it looked better than the standard 2-D print. In addition, we were treated to numerous 3-D transferred scenes including Attack of the Clones, Lilo and Stitch, and a couple of quick scenes from Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings. It was absolute breathtaking, and I'm still sort of reeling from it.
 

Ollie Pooch

In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Ecrofirt said:
not to derail this, but how would 3D kill piracy?

i would assume that the effect doesnt work if you're not using those weird glasses - so if people are recording with shitty handicam/watching on the wrong equipment it's probably unwatchable.
 

android

Theoretical Magician
Foreign Jackass said:
Harry Knowles is huge and dumb. He's almost the definition of 3D.
He has probably got popcorn from the original Star Wars run in '77 stuck in his crevices.
harry_knowles.jpg
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
Warm Machine said:
Willco get off your soapbox.

This is a message board, it's everybody's soapbox.

Do you actually think the goal of AICN was for Harry to work his way into film production?

That question is irrelevant, but I will address it from two sites. One, regardless of his intentions, he is in film production and you asked me how he sold out. Two, if you're that interested in film, as almost all who are, your end goal is to be involved in the industry. Let's not kid ourselves.

Harry is a fan boy who runs a fan boy site.

Harry used to be a fanboy who used to run a fanboy site. Now it's pretty much a soapbox for him to bitch about things and recommend obscure Swedish films. The users do most of the work for him.

The site is there to recommend movies and provide information on them from the perspective of fan boys.

Then the site fails miserably.

They are not selling anything themselves aside from Harrys book which is a collection of writings from a fan boy which you will or will not buy depending on whether or not you think there is any value in it.

They also sell movies. Harry peddles films by his Hollywood friends, which continue to grow with the more time he spends in a suit. The site usually attacks you with movie advertising too. And don't be naive and think when John Carter of Mars finally rolls around, that Harry won't use the site to market it.

Is Harry actually accountable for anything he writes or the information the site provides?

Uh, yeah.

Is GAF because it amounts to the same thing.

Not really. Nobody truly directs what happens at these forums, which are indeed that -- forums. It's pretty irrelevant to your whole thing here. And those who somewhat represent the forums, the mods, do hold people accountable for what they write. I can't post bittorrents, kiddie porn, insult people, etc.

Does GAF make money from me coming here and reading the message boards for information and news?

GAF barely makes any money, which is a problem for these forums, but I'm sure Wasabi & Co. track your movements to setup demographic information to possible clients wanting to market their product. And that in turn makes them money off of you.

Seeing an ad on Harrys site doesn't persuade me to go see a film.

That's great. I never said it did and I don't care. But they do persuade many to go see a film because that's why people pay Harry money to put them on his site.

At any rate, I'm not really going to address the rest of your post because I didn't see anything that added anything to this conversation and it's 1:20 AM, so I'm tired.

You asked me to tell you why he's a sellout, I show you why, you post some mish-mash of comments saying that you're not a generic sheep that listens to his every word and stuff happens. I guess the next step is for you to whip out your cock and wave it, which will prompt me to wave my even bigger cock and slap you with it. But it's kind of pointless at this point, so I won't continue.

Final Thoughts:

Harry Knowles is not a necessarily evil man, but he has certainly used to the site for his best interests and as a newfound Hollywood suit, he has evolved from a fanboy to an industry Yes-Man. He makes a lot of money. If you need proof of this, then you obviously don't visit the site or you're incredibly naive.
 
Kobun Heat said:
In an age when people are downloading perfect movies and projecting them on their home theater systems, you have to find some way to get people going back to the theaters.

Yeah, because people are obviously not going to the theaters to see movies anymore. Thanks to piracy I only have to show up two fucking hours before a movie to stand in line, so I don't get clusterfucked in the front row. This is fucking ridiculous. From my experience pirating movies hasn't stopped anyone I know from going to see movies almost every weekend. Piracy will never replace the theater experience for the average person.
 

ManaByte

Member
Another classic moment of Harry Knowles vs The Internet. This tale EXPLODED to a point where Harry was publically grilled about it at a San Diego Comic Con panel that was absolutely classic with people attacking him left and right. I'll quote the best parts so you get the idea:
http://www.corona.bc.ca/films/directorscut/000605.html

Last Thursday Coming Attractions broke an unconfirmed story that actor Jimmy Smits had been secretly cast in Star Wars Episode Two. We ran this story after holding back on it for more than a week to aquire additional information. Shortly after posting the story on CA's SW2 page, I wrote a press release to the online community notifying them that we were running this story. The body of this message read:

Hey gang,

I rarely do this, but I feel the importance of this piece of gossip is important enough to pass on to you all. CA's running the story that Jimmy Smits (yes, he of NYPD Blue fame, but I prefer LA Law myself) has been secretly cast in a role that'll have him starring in STAR WARS 2 as well as STAR WARS 3. I don't know the name of the character yet, but according to my source, Smits' deal is done and only requires a few days of filming. However, his role in SW3 is much larger and will require more time from the actor. I trust my source and his credibility, which I outline on the CA STAR WARS 2 page.

Details are on http:www.corona.bc.ca/films/details/sw2.html. If Lucas is serious about shooting this film starting next month, there should be some kind of casting announcement fairly soon, you think, right? Well, this is Lucas...

Patrick@CA

Some hours later the story began appearing on other websites across the 'net. However, when it ran on Ain't it Cool News, the e-mail had been slightly modified and the story altered in such a way that I felt Coming Attractions role had been downplayed, that the efforts of AICN were more notable than CA's work in delivering this scoop.

Here's the beginning of the AICN news item about the CA story:

Smits lands a small role in SW #2 and 3

OK so this isn't a cutting edge scoop, I (Father Geek) am posting it for the benefit of our readers that DON'T have the time to surf around to all the different film sites out there on the web. Actually Patrick over at CA ran this by us here at AICN before it went up on his site and then instantly everywhere else, but, Stone me if you like, Father Geek was waiting for some more info to expand it into a story not just an unconfirmed sound bite, however it seems no expanded story is forthcoming. This DOES seem to be fact not rumor though, any way here is what is KNOWN at present...

Last Friday I sent out another e-mail to the names on the SW2 notice. This time I addressed the changes to my original e-mail that had appeared on the AICN news story, wanting to make sure that everyone understood where CA had been coming from when I originally sent off the e-mail. I also said that I wasn't going to let this go unnoticed; private e-mails with AICN were getting no results, and I was going to address the matter publically in today's Director's Cut column.

What happened next was a flood of e-mails from webmasters who also had similar stories to share. It's not my place to speak about anyone else's experiences save what's happened with CA, but the e-mails seemed to indicate that other sites had been burned in the past by AICN, and that they wished something could be done.

It was then suggested by another person that perhaps a intelligently written, non-emotional e-mail could be sent to AICN and signed by the individuals who felt the site was casting a poor light on the public's perception of Internet movie websites. Like it or not, the public does perceive what AICN represents as the entire picture of the 'net. For AICN to maintain it's not bound by journalistic ethics or boundaries, yet be seen in a wider public spotlight as an online source for movie news and reviews is a conflicting message, don't you think?

To save us from uncertainty, I agreed to draft the first version of the letter. It seemed right, since my e-mail had sparked off this debate. Everyone seemed to agree, and I wrote up what I thought was a fairly written letter to explain our grievances to AICN and how we believe it affects us as a whole community.

Unfortunately, someone in the mailing list sent the letter (before it had been seriously discussed, reviewed, and revised to a final agreed-upon form), off to AICN. AICN then decided it was appropriate to post the letter, including the names of the participants on the mailing list -- participants who at the time did not decide to sign the letter -- publically on that site. Not only was this action in incredibly bad taste for AICN, by printing only a portion of the dialogue between the e-mail participants, it painted an incomplete picture of the entire situation. Of course, no one at AICN sees any wrong in posting the e-mail addresses of thirty people, nor was there any e-mails sent to these individuals asking why this debate was taking place. Instead, AICN brought it out into a public forum -- and presented the subject to its readership incomplete. After all, why should such matters as following up on the story matter to AICN staffers when they say they're not journalists, right? Yet it's no secret that there are plans for a Ain't it Cool News TV show, or that AICN hosts screening of movies by studios, or that AICN staffers are given the same treatment as mainstream reviewers. So if they're not journalists, they're not bound by a code of conduct. So that means anything goes, right?

You can see this here: http://www.aint-it-cool-news.com/display.cgi?id=6127 and all the email addresses are still up.

What's most curious is that Harry Knowles, when he addressed the matter yesterday (Sunday) on AICN, chose only one topic from the letter: the matter of credit. Nothing was mentioned of the claims that peoples e-mails have been modified from their original content, or that feedback has disappeared from his site. Nothing was made mention of the rebuttals that are sometimes made in the viewer feedback part of the AICN site that disappear. In fact, Harry went out of his way to again, make a point that AICN had received the Smits casting rumor "about 30 minutes before." Again, why do that? What's the point in doing that when the topic Harry has chosen is, as Harry states, scooping me with my editorial? Instead, why not keep the matter on focus and address these issues if they're wrong? Why change the subject? And again, this isn't the first time AICN and controversy have butted heads; the incorrect Oscar nominee list from last February is a prime example, or the reversal of Harry's review of 1998's Godzilla.
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
ManaByte, care to share anything you heard ON THE STREET about Harry from your previous employer?
 

ManaByte

Member
Willco said:
ManaByte, care to share anything you heard ON THE STREET about Harry from your previous employer?

Everything anyone ever wants to know about Harry is in those FilmThreat and Coming Attractions links.

That Comic Con panel was so fucking awesome. Harry waltzed in there expecting to dominate the panel and make himself seem so special, when what really happened was he was attacked by everyone else on the panel. :lol
 

ManaByte

Member
Naked Shuriken said:
We need a transcript of that!

Trying to find one, it's tricky.

http://www.reel.com/reel.asp?node=movienews/confidential&pageid=14926

Kings of the Ring

Panel But let's not kid ourselves. I came to watch mud fly at a panel discussion called "Caught in the Net: Movie Webmasters on Hollywood, the Internet, and the Future of Their Bastard Child."

Specifically, to listen to four Web journalists — Rough Cut's Dave Poland, Film Threat's Chris Gore, Coming Attractions' Parick Sauriol, and Chud's Nick Nunziata — rough up Ain't It Cool News' Harry Knowles, who was also there in the flesh, along with writer/director Kevin Smith, and X-Men producer Tom DeSanto. IGN Movies' Den Shewman moderated.

I wasn't disappointed. They gave Harry some hell. His sins, they said, included the appearance of acting arrogantly and ethically irresponsible in certain ways. They rapped him for appearing to be too chummy with moneyed, honeyed Hollywood. They were especially angry about Harry having posted posting their e-mail addresses at one point during the Jimmy Smits/Star Wars Episode 2 brouhaha a few weeks back.

Harry apologized for the posting ("It was a mistake"), but otherwise stood his ground and even jabbed back here and there. And Smith got off some good, funny lines.

But the discussion was a little too political and mild-mannered for my taste. No one raised their voice or lost their temper or squirted anyone with a seltzer bottle. And there didn't seem to be any particular focus or shape to the scrapping. It was this topic, then another topic, and then something else, then back to the first topic, and then Smith would make a crack and everyone would laugh.

I'm looking over my notes and I still can't find a shape to it, but if there was a theme, it was probably, "With great power, comes great responsibility."

Gore got off a good one at the beginning by pointedly describing Film Threat as a site that "confirms facts," an allusion to a recent piece by Ron Wells that calls Knowles' ethics into question. Knowles shot right back with, "Did you confirm the story, Chris? I don't remember getting a phone call." Poland jumped in, then Gore again, and then Harry, and things started to build.

I had written about this fracas and wanted to see where the discussion might go, but some in the audience yelled, "Move on! Move on!" So the Wells' Film Threat article was dropped.

The movie experience, said DeSanto, "has been forever changed by the Internet, for better or worse."

Poland told Knowles that he has "real concerns" about how malleable Knowles may be when it comes to studio gift-giving and massaging. Referring to a recent trip Knowles took to Prague to visit the set of Sony's A Knight's Tale, Poland said to Knowles, "I can tell you, whether you realize it or not, that Sony thinks they own your ass now and have you pretty much in their pocket."

At one point, I asked the panelists how they were interpreting the abrupt fall-off of business for X-Men, but that topic, too, was waved aside because the audience was becoming bored.

Midway through the discussion, Sauriol raised an ethical issue by saying, "We need to check each other and to affirm basic journalistic standards. There's this concern about being renegades or untrustworthy — reflecting only a fraction of what's been written — that mainstream media people have about us. Without a set of unified rules, the studios are never going to respect us."

Instances of studios getting angry at certain Internet journalists for what they've regarded as intemperate reporting or reviewing were brought up. 20th Century Fox was angered awhile back at Knowles for running X-Men photos that temporarily queered a deal with Entertainment Weekly to run an X-Men photo on a cover. De Santo confirmed that they almost lost the EW cover because of this.

Poland said he was concerned about stepping over lines that might aggravate relations with the studios. Knowles mentioned at one point that he'd been banned from getting access or inside information to Fox's Titan A.E., to which Smith said, "That's a f**king blessing."

Then Smith admonished Poland for what he apparently felt was an undue concern about not wanting to piss off the powers-that-be and keep things on par regarding access to early screenings.

While Poland tried to explain what the political realities of dealing with the studios involved, Smith shot back with, "F**k the studios! Who gives a s**t about seeing [a film] early? Pay your seven bucks, see it on your own, write what you want, and f**k 'em! Don't worry about those cats! The weapon of the Internet is that everyone has a f**king voice."

Poland countered that there was no one on the panel who wasn't "doing business" with the studios. "If renegades are really renegades, fine," he said. "It's when supposed independents start playing both sides that we've got problems."

At one point, Knowles said part of his role in talking early about the flaws of a film like Batman and Robin was that he thought he might save someone the $7 they'd pay to see it.

"You can't save anyone $7 by saying Batman and Robin is bad," Smith responded. "Because they just say 'Oh, yeah? How bad?' and they pay to see it anyway."
 
Knowles mentioned at one point that he'd been banned from getting access or inside information to Fox's Titan A.E., to which Smith said, "That's a f**king blessing."

Same could be said about Smith's last few movies.
 
I really don't think movie piracy is nearly as big of an issue as music piracy and never will be.

For starters, even if a person is willing to sit around and wait to download a copy of a movie, the quality of watching that versus seeing it on a big theater screen with theater sound is night and day.

Also going to the theater is simply a social activity that will never be replaced. Its an easy, no hassle way to do something on a Friday or Saturday night or an safe bet for going on a date or to get the kids outta the house.
 
cbg.gif




harry_knowles.jpg


I remember the episode where the Comic Book Guy goes on the internet to talk about the radioactive man movie. Everytime Now I see it, I think of this looser(knowles).

for my movie news, I'll stick to Darkhorizons or Cinecon.
 

shantyman

WHO DEY!?
Cerebral Palsy said:
Same could be said about Smith's last few movies.

I hate to derail the thread, but Kevin Smith is EXTREMELY crititcal of a lot of things considering his career works (which I think are almost uniformly terrible).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom