Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Columnist Fired For Reviewing Pirated Movie

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the don't-mess-with-rupert dept.

Movies 466

Hugh Pickens writes "Roger Friedman, an entertainment columnist for FoxNews.com, discovered over the weekend just what Rupert Murdoch means by 'zero tolerance' when it comes to movie piracy. On Friday, the film studio 20th Century Fox — owned by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate ruled by Mr. Murdoch — became angry after reading Friedman's latest column, a review of 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine,' a big-budget movie that was leaked in unfinished form on the Web last week. Friedman posted a mini-review, adding, 'It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer.' The film studio, which enlisted the FBI to hunt the pirate, put out a statement calling Friedman's column 'reprehensible' while News Corporation weighed in with its own statement, saying it had asked Fox News to remove the column from its Web site. 'When we advised Fox News of the facts,' the statement said, 'they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ha ha (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475051)

stupid idiot

Re:ha ha (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475649)

When are we going to get some perspective here, people?

IT'S A FUCKING MOVIE!

He should have seen that coming. (5, Insightful)

Again (1351325) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475065)

That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Funny)

Joe the Lesser (533425) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475107)

He foolishly thought in-depth investigative reporting would be welcome at Fox.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475125)

His review must not have been fair and balanced...

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475197)

A movie review is now "in-depth investigative reporting?"

I guess when it suits your agenda...

Re:He should have seen that coming. (1, Interesting)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475427)

Yes. When people are rejecting the usual distribution models for movies, even when it means they get an unfinished version, then it matters.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Insightful)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475469)

If it were an in-depth story about rejecting the "usual distribution models," I'd agree. As it stands, it was merely a review of a pirated movie.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Insightful)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475631)

People regularly reject the law and go their own way, that doesn't mean that journalists are allowed to break the law to make sure that their reports are more "in depth". The guy deserves just what he got for being dumb enough to so publicly announce that he broke the law.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475509)

A movie review is now "in-depth investigative reporting?"

Take a look at whats typically on Fox News and I think you'll agree that a movie review would be the most in-depth investigative reporting that the network has ever done.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Insightful)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475315)

Please explain how reviewing an unfinished movie leaked onto the internet and obtained by violating company policy is "in-depth investigative reporting".

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Funny)

Mike73 (979311) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475507)

It's clearly a form of radical journalism, providing an avant-garde commentary on movie piracy.

Genius, really.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (1)

kingcobra0128 (1131641) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475595)

Technically copyright laws are beyond me. I believe they state that you cant reproduce or give it away for money but the law is vague if I remember. As if the movie studio isn't going to make money off the movie. Lets see, first you bring it to theaters, then send out movies for sale and rental, then the toys they will make to sell to kids, posters. I don't know if I have everything but the movie company's are bastards.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (0, Flamebait)

hobbit (5915) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475669)

Wow. The purpose of copyright really is completely beyond you, isn't it?

Why not just look it up on Wikipedia?

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Insightful)

A. B3ttik (1344591) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475333)

"in-depth investigative reporting"? The movie wasn't even finished.

It wasn't edited, had no special effects, and I'm willing to bet it didn't have any music or extra sounds. What I would fire him for would be for reviewing it with anything more than a "Looks like it could be promising..." approach.

IMO, this was just an unsuccessful attempt by the reviewer to score a few points by being the "first" to review the film. Thankfully, it bit him in the butt since you really shouldn't review unfinished works.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Insightful)

sam_handelman (519767) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475465)

Okay, no, it wasn't in-depth reporting.

  And it appears (look in a sister thread,) that FOX isn't going to fire him. At least not immediately.

  The *reason* that FOX isn't going to fire him is because their news division is *supposed* to be independent of their other divisions. Among other things, this is part of the conditions under which their affiliates get discounted access to the public airwaves.

  Yeah, yeah, that's a joke, right? Of course it is. BUT, for FOX news to fire this guy would be a pretty brazen display of non-independence, wouldn't it? The joke is only funny if you keep it going. And FOX can no longer count on a pet federal government giving them an easy ride of it.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (3, Insightful)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475577)

The fact that they talk about it SHOWS that they are not independent. And that was for a pretty minor item. You can imagine how much power Murdoch has over the regular reporting.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475535)

It was a review.
It violated company policy.
It was illegal.
It really was worthless since it was an unfinished version of the movie.

My guess is that any company would have fired him. They should fire his editor for publishing it as well.
Actually the editor should have stopped it and given him a strong warning about being stupid then he would still have his job and we never would have heard about it.
Just what planet are you from where you think a review of a pirated movie is in-depth investigative reporting?

Re:He should have seen that coming. (2, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475203)

That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?

The leak is news. I suppose that he might also have been fired if he was reporting on the wide availability of sexual services downtown and picked up a hooker to prove it. But when it comes to journalistic ethics and integrity, for Faux News to jump on this while ignoring the contemptible bullshit spewing from their cable channel on a 24/7 basis... That'd be like CNBC firing the intern for walking home with paperclips in his pocket while continuing to laud that fraudulent little imp Jim Cramer.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (-1, Flamebait)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475291)

To be considered like a journalist ?

Re:He should have seen that coming. (4, Funny)

mochan_s (536939) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475389)

That was stupid of him. What did he expect would happen?

The fact is that there are people who download and watch movies. Do we want our movies reviewed by such people? Do you want your children to read review by such people, or have your children go to school with these people? To be taught by these people. Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is these people are real, and they are among us.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475515)

well played sir, but I think that it could have helped having a little different finale, as a well coherent babbling should tell you how I became the prince of a town called Bel Air, In west Philadelphia born and raised On the playground was where I spent most of my days Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool And all shootin some b-ball outside of the school When a couple of guys Who were up to no good Startin making trouble in my neighborhood I got in one little fight and my mom got scared She said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air'

Re:He should have seen that coming. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475689)

Do you want your children to read review by such people, or have your children go to school with these people? To be taught by these people

I don't see that it matters as long as they aren't encouraging the kids to do likewise. Most people will have broken some law whether it's littering, speeding, whatever. Unless they are actively or passively teaching "the children" that it's okay to do the same, then it doesn't really bear any relevance. When you're acting in an official capacity for your job, you have to act responsibly or be prepared to face the consequences.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (2, Interesting)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475411)

How is this different from a journalist writing about any other illegally acquired information, like say a classified document leaked from the White House? OH! Because the mafiaa is involved. Suddenly it's a firing offense. ZOMG PIRACY!!1!1!

Re:He should have seen that coming. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475681)

It's not illegal to have classified documents, only to leak them. It's illegal to download copyrighted material without permission. Yes, the law is that insane.

Re:He should have seen that coming. (1)

SalaSSin (1414849) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475625)

Well, i surely didn't expect that "they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."

After killer dollar penalties, now simply killers on your ass... Watch out PirateBay & Co!

Err, not exactly news (5, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475075)

In any business, if you do something that makes worse a big problem the business you're dealing with has, you get fired.

If a trader even hints over insider information, they get fired. If a cook even hints about cockroaches, down the restaurant goes, and if a reporter or whatever from an institution that relies on copyright heavily hints of piracy, well, good bye he goes.

I'd be surprised if the opposite happened.

Re:Err, not exactly news (5, Insightful)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475437)

In any business other than a bank, if you do something that makes worse a big problem the business you're dealing with has, you get fired.

Bailed that out for you.

Re:Err, not exactly news (1)

Stuart Gibson (544632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475629)

Oh to have mod points. I doff my cap to you, sir.

Re:Err, not exactly news (1)

PriceIke (751512) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475441)

He wasn't promoting anything but digital delivery. He was pointing out how convenient it was. This is a reality of the marketplace today. But that goes against the party line, so they canned him.

FTFA (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475083)

"When we advised Fox News of the facts," the statement said, "they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."

Now that's harsh

Re:FTFA (5, Funny)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475109)

Yeah exactly. Since when have Fox News ever paid attention to the facts?

Re:FTFA (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475247)

I always knew SkyNet would emerge from a dark, disturbing network. But Fox News?

We're all doomed.

Re:FTFA (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475285)

You know the same guy who owns Fox News, owns 20th Century Fox, the people who made the movie, right?

Epic stupidity. Rupert Murdoch has zero sense of humor.

Re:FTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475337)

Hasta la vista, baby.

Re:FTFA (5, Funny)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475351)

I can only assume that by "terminated" they mean they sent an android back in time to kill his mother before he was ever conceived.

The News (1)

megrims (839585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475087)

Apparently the leaked film, Wolverine was news. Looks like Fox and Murdoch just aren't into that these days.

I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.

Re:The News (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475123)

I recall a time when the impartiality of the press was something to be admired, at least idealistically. I guess not so much anymore.

Oh please. This wasn't some investigative reporter who was fired for exposing political corruption or some such. This was an entertainment columnist who was fired for breaking a well known company policy. You'll forgive me if I'm not broken up with sympathy for him.

Re:The News (1)

megrims (839585) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475155)

No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it. Personally, I'd rather read a vaguely interesting story like this one than much of the usual rubbish in the entertainment column.

Re:The News (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475193)

No? The man had a vaguely interesting story and lost his job over it

And he acquired that "vaguely interesting story" by breaking company policy. A policy that he presumably knew about and had reason to obey. So again, cry me a river....

Re:The News (2, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475257)

Additionally, his column was a *review*. Reviewing a leaked, unfinished movie and then reviewing it is a terrible practice, even if there are caveats involved.

For one thing, it is extremely unfair to the people who made the film, as they did not have a chance to actually finish it, and more importantly, it's inaccurate, even if he thought it was the best movie since Casablanca.

Yeah, I'm with you .... (1)

King_TJ (85913) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475655)

As strongly as I oppose most copyright legislation, consider myself a proponent of p2p sharing protocols and networks, and despise bandwidth monitoring/limiting -- I don't think we really have a story here?

If you take a job that consists of reviewing movies and writing about the "entertainment industry", it should be no surprise they'd let you go if you started reviewing something before they said it was "ready" for viewing. If they wanted a writer to write a "pre-release review" of some of their work, they'd provide him/her an advance copy.

That being said, it sounds like Fox is currently debating whether or not they want to fire the guy over it anyway? Seems clear they're in the right if they do - but they may now be afraid of making a "martyr for the cause" out of him, that would encourage even more sharing around of leaked out, unfinished movies.

Re:The News (0)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475329)

A) Fox News was never into news

B) A story about the film being leaked is news, a story about what the leaked film was like, with the addendum that the download was super easy, that's not exactly news, that's admission of an illegal action.

C) You notice there is a "Fox" in "Fox News" and a "Fox" in "20th Century Fox"? There is a reason for that.

Reason ? (0)

kTag (24819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475095)

The article doesn't mention why they fired him. Might not even be related. If it is, maybe we should wait for an explanation ?

Re:Reason ? (1)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475217)

From the fine article, and the summary:

Over the weekend, the Web site Deadline Hollywood Daily reported that Mr. Friedman had been dismissed. Sure enough, on Sunday came a revised statement from the News Corporation. "When we advised Fox News of the facts," the statement said, "they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman."

Re:Reason ? (1)

kTag (24819) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475461)

I think you missed the fine title of my comment : what is the reason ?

Re:Reason ? (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475225)

THAT article might not, but there's plenty of articles which do.

Shame we don't have a mnemonic/acronym for Read the OTHER frakkin Article. :)

Lol (4, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475097)

Wow, what a moron.

First off, how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there? "I'm sure the special effects will be awesome, but they're crap right now."

Second, given the fact that everyone has their panties in a twist over this, how stupid would you have to be to use your position as a journalist to basically say, "Hey, I broke the law as a part of my job, and not because I wanted to expose government corruption or something, but because I really really wanted to see the new Wolverine movie." That's a major liability exposure for News Corp, assuming it wants to sue itself, and holy shit, ways to piss off your notoriously evil crazy news overlord boss.

Given the state of the news media right now, that guy'll never work in the field again.

Re:Lol (3, Funny)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475137)

'Wow, what a moron.'

Yeah, that goes without saying. We're talking about an entertainment columnist from Fox News. Seriously.

Re:Lol (4, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475283)

We're talking about an entertainment columnist from Fox News.

Hey, not every person with a B.A. degree can go on to become a barista.

Re:Lol (5, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475199)

how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there? "I'm sure the special effects will be awesome, but they're crap right now."

Well, I hear (*cough* *cough*) that there are only a few effects shots which are unfinished. Less than 5 minutes worth. And even with unfinished effects, you could review the movie in the terms of plot, acting, etc...

I'll grant you, you couldn't review a Michael Bay movie that way, but Wolverine is apparently a character story too.

Re:Lol (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475249)

First off, how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there? "I'm sure the special effects will be awesome, but they're crap right now."

Uh, did you ever see computer game previews? They're pretty much all like that. Besides, I assume the plot was all there? If anything you could get a more honest look at the movie just not "the fancy special effects covered the gaping plot holes" that you usually get. I haven't watched it, I see no reason to. But I figure it'll give someone a very good idea whether it'll be a hit or flop.

Re:Lol (4, Insightful)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475301)

First off, how can you review an unfinished movie? Who is your audience there?

Film students.

I don't buy pirated movies unless I liked the movie so much I want to watch it again between the time the movie has left the theaters and DVD release. After that I buy the DVD. I know it's still illegal, but that's what I do. I also bought this movie when I was walking down the street and a guy asked me if I wanted it. I had read the articles about the movie being released AND I knew it was incomplete. That is why I bought it and watched it. As someone who has made my own movies (only relatives and friends have ever seen my efforts) I have a curiousity about the entire film making process. I am the audience for this man's review. There are probably many others like me.

This is also of interest

I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!

You and I may not like the fact that he was able to find all of this on the internet, but the truth is it is all out there. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Plus, it is awful damn embarrassing that "It took really less than seconds to start playing it all". It takes TIME to get a DVD I paid money for to start playing the movie. The studios need to get their act together here.

Re:Lol (4, Funny)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475657)

Given the state of the news media right now, that guy'll never work in the field again.

Maybe The Pirate Bay can start a reviews section and he could get a job there!

That's what happens (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475113)

That's what happens when greedy Jews, ignorant Rednecks, and that cock-gobbler Rupert Murdoch meet.

I just wish they had taken out the Jews.

Sloppy journalism (5, Funny)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475121)

they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.

Now did they terminate HIM or only his EMPLOYMENT?

If the former, I begin to get an inkling of America's problem with the copyright mafia.

Re:Sloppy journalism (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475355)

Of course they only terminated his employment. After all, I have lots of torrented movies and the MPAA hasn' href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105"

Re:Sloppy journalism (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475477)

Murdoch is an Aussie. News Corp didn't move to the US until 2004.

Re:Sloppy journalism (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475491)

Now did they terminate HIM or only his EMPLOYMENT?

If the former, I begin to get an inkling of America's problem with the copyright mafia.


You just leaked the plot for 20th Century Fox's big 2010 blockbuster. Who told you about it? Who?

I'm warning you, you better tell us, right now, or your family will be on the street or you'll be locked in a box...

Re:Sloppy journalism (1)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475565)

Let me guess: Terminator IV: Lawyers Gone Haywire?

Read the column here (4, Informative)

Aapje (237149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475131)

The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot [chud.com] of it.

Re:Read the column here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475279)

Wow, I am surprised they fired him for it. Contrary to all the flak the movie has been getting by many who have seen it, he was all gung ho about the movie. Almost made me want to see it. Not enough to spend 10 or 12 bucks to see it, but almost.

Re:Read the column here (3, Informative)

Aapje (237149) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475475)

Wow, I am surprised they fired him for it. Contrary to all the flak the movie has been getting by many who have seen it, he was all gung ho about the movie.

I think that the problem was that the review said that you didn't miss anything by downloading the workprint. He probably would have been ok if he kept the gushing comments about the movie, but had said that you miss a lot by seeing the pirated movie.

The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (5, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475133)

In case you want to discuss the review, here it is [rottentomatoes.com] (don't read if you hate spoilers):

Yes, I've seen "X Men Origins: Wolverine." It wasn't at a screening, either. I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night. Let's hope by now it's gone.

But the cat is out of the bag, as they say, and the genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back. But no, I will not tell you the big twist/surprise toward the end. Not now, a whole month away from release. That wouldn't be nice.

Right now, my "cousins" at 20th Century Fox are probably having apoplexy. I doubt anyone else has seen this film. But everyone can relax. I am, in fact, amazed about how great "Wolverine" turned out. It exceeds expectations at every turn. I was completely riveted to my desk chair in front of my computer.

I don't know what the really big headline is here: the fact that "Wolverine" is so good, or that I also found the current top 10 movies in theaters, as well as a turgid domestic drama called "Fireflies in the Garden" with Ryan Reynolds and Julia Roberts -- the latter in a minor role while her husband, Danny Moder, is credited as director of photography.

I did find the whole top 10, plus TV shows, commercials, videos, everything, all streaming away. It took really less than seconds to start playing it all right onto my computer. I could have downloaded all of it but really, who has the time or the room? Later tonight I may finally catch up with Paul Rudd in "I Love You, Man." It's so much easier than going out in the rain!

But back to "Wolverine": this is the prequel to the first "X Men" movie. Directed by Gavin Hood, the film is as cutting edge as it is old fashioned. This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009, and one we really need right now. It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional. Hood simply did an excellent job bringing Wolverine's early life to the screen.

Hugh Jackman is Wolverine, of course, and he is more a movie star in this movie than ever before. It doesn't hurt that he's spent every waking minute in the gym. Hood doesn't hide that. Jackman fans will get their fill of their hero. He's joined by a phenomenal cast, too â" Liev Schreiber as his evil but equally clawed brother, Victor, aka Sabretooth; Ryan Reynolds (he gets a lot of work, that's for sure) as Deadpool; Dominic Monagan as Beak; Kevin Durand as the Blob; and the sensational sort of Han Solo-ish Taylor Kitsch as Gambit. There's also sultry Lynn Collins as Wolverine's love interest, and Danny Huston as the villainous Colonel Stryker.

I do think the film works so beautifully because the screenplay is so streamlined. David Benioff (whose real name, I read, is David Friedman -- he's married to Amanda Peet) carefully delineated these characters and did a smashing job. I had less trouble following this story than the one in "Fireflies in the Garden." He's made "Wolverine" just the right kind of summer entertainment -- a thrill ride with lots of emotional investment and a hero simply bigger than life. That's all you can ask for.

Now, I did see "Wolverine" on a large, wide computer screen, and not in a movie theater, but it could not have played better. Still, this was a workprint and there were about a dozen things not finished. A couple of times it was possible to see the harnesses on the actors. It didn't take away from the film at all. But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects!

Re:The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475267)

That's seriously how this guy writes? It reads like either his intended audience is elementary schoolers or he's been reading [xkcd.com] simple.wikipedia.org way too long.

Re:The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (4, Insightful)

Potor (658520) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475277)

He is such a bad writer:

But the cat is out of the bag, as they say, and the genie is out of the bottle. There's no turning back.

And then consider this Gricean nightmare:

I was completely riveted to my desk chair in front of my computer.

He is a professional writer who depends on cliches and bloated prose. I could go on, but simply put, I've always wondered how he had a job.

Re:The Review -- SPOILER ALERT! (2, Insightful)

BESTouff (531293) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475511)

It's miles easier to understand than "The Dark Knight," and tremendously more emotional.

Is that marketspeak for "dumb action movie" ?

Not fired? (5, Informative)

d-r0ck (1365765) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475139)

Saturday night they issued a statement claiming that Friedman had been fired. Everyone nodded their heads and went back about their business. Now though, the situation is suddenly much less clear.

Friedman tells Variety that he hasnâ(TM)t been terminated and from the sounds of things, itâ(TM)s business as usual for him over at Fox News. In fact Fox now seems to be backing away from their initial statement entirely. Today they issued this statement in place of their affirmation of Friedmanâ(TM)s firing: âoeThis is an internal matter that we're not prepared to discuss at this time.â

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Fox-Backpedaling-Roger-Friedman-Not-Fired-12638.html [cinemablend.com]

Re:Not fired? (5, Funny)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475205)

Friedman tells Variety that he hasnÃ(TM)t been terminated and from the sounds of things, itÃ(TM)s business as usual for him over at Fox

I'd like to know when Slashdot is going to fix their scripts so that when folks post quotes, it doesn't post like someone with one of those cheap fake Italian accents. Or make it better...

Friedman tells Variety that hesa hasnÃ(TM)t been terminated anda from ah the sounds of things, itÃ(TM)s business as ah usual for hima over at Foxa

Re:Not fired? (1)

Geirzinho (1068316) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475463)

Guess it pays off to be a union member...

That said, his review of the movie was positive. (1)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475149)

And I have it on good authority (*cough* *cough*) that it's the sort of movie I'd like as well.
I fully expect to shell out my hard earned dough for a movie that was^H^H^H is about as good as the original xmen, or spiderman movie.

Sites like www.aintitcoolnews.com are refusing to run reviews, which hasn't prevented a lot of people from slamming the movie. They tend to criticise it for being a poor adaptation of the comics, complaining about how the character of Deadpool was used for example, rather than judging it as an adaptation.

Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your job? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475153)

So, Mr. Friedman was in fact fired for browsing and watching something online that turned out to be illegal?

I might be "just another internet user" (i.e. stupid), but I thought that you can ONLY get into trouble for downloading (meaning you save data on your harddisk which can be copied and re-distributed). I never knew that watching the wrong youtube movie can mean you lose your job.

I also see that Mr. Friedman had a job related to the movie industry - but still... I find this shocking.

Re:Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your j (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475259)

So, Mr. Friedman was in fact fired for browsing and watching something online that turned out to be illegal?

I might be "just another internet user" (i.e. stupid), but I thought that you can ONLY get into trouble for downloading (meaning you save data on your harddisk which can be copied and re-distributed). I never knew that watching the wrong youtube movie can mean you lose your job.

You can be fired for breaking company policy.

Re:Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your j (2, Informative)

mikesd81 (518581) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475289)

Viewing porn, without saving it on your drive, would be in violation of MANY companies rules of conduct. Posting on blogs, weather it be something bad about your company or just blogs in general, also are usually a violation.

Re:Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your j (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475433)

Posting on blogs, weather it be something bad about your company or just blogs in general, also are usually a violation.

Hmm, isn't slashdot technically a blog?

...

Hey, where'd everyone go?

Re:Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your j (1)

Animaether (411575) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475571)

Viewing porn, without saving it on your drive, would be in violation of MANY companies rules of conduct.

hmmm.. so if I save it to my drive, I'm in the clear? win/win!

Re:Watch the wrong youtube movies, and lose your j (1)

tellthepeople (1451199) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475567)

The thing is somewhere along the way, even if there wasn't a copy on his hard disk, there was still a copy of in his RAM/cache/video memory which is covered by copyright law. I'm not quite sure how this works but if only part of the movie was on his computer at one time you might be able to argue that it was Fair Use.

Funny that (1)

Norsefire (1494323) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475173)

He was employed by a media company, the industry that is affected most by piracy. It would be equivalent to being fired from an autorepair shop for winding the odometer back.

Re:Funny that (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475589)

Oh, it's worse than that. News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's big multi-national evil media empire, owns both Fox News and 20th Century Fox, the studio that's bankrolling and distributing the Wolverine movie.

So it's not that they have sympathy for some fellow sufferer, it's that they're the same company.

Promoting Piracy? (4, Interesting)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475179)

If you read what the guy said, it sound more like "Wow and I can get all this media simply off the internet". He was trying to highlight that the media industry really missed the boat on ease of use. Having to buy and store DVDs is such a pain compared to the internet.

blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475231)

guess that statement that the writing a review of a movie (even if pirated) is legal. (e.g. commentary)

there was a commentary made by an article about dvd/movie piracy before showing that commentary / review of a movie (even if the movie was not released to the general public or even the press - would not constitute as illegal viewing or distribution due some law about journalists and commentary.

oh well.

wilful confusion (4, Insightful)

Aurisor (932566) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475255)

Again we see the conflating of 'receiving pirated works' (which is 100% legal) and 'illegal distribution' (which is a civil matter).

Granted, spoiling a multi-million dollar movie made by your employer's owners is a pretty serious faux pas, but I think it's only fair that we remember what rights we have untill the MPAA has the decency to buy a couple senators and cram a couple self-serving laws down our throats.

Re:wilful confusion (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475397)

Again we see the conflating of 'receiving pirated works' (which is 100% legal) and 'illegal distribution' (which is a civil matter).

Except that the aforementioned movie was found on The Pirate Bay, right? So if he torrented it, he was certainly uploading as well as downloading. And that uploading constitutes illegal distribution, correct?

Spoiler? don't think so. (1)

Bysshe (1330263) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475529)

Since when was this a spoiler? Anyone could have written this without having seen the movie, just gathering some facts widely available.

Just give a writer two assignments: write a good review, write a bad review, we'll publish the one that's the most truthful later (or the one we feel like publishing if fox is in charge)

Love it (2, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475371)

The media reaction is priceless. Some of the talking heads are acting like this guy raped a child and killed a nun by firing starving kittens at her with an air cannon. Damn but I love it when the media goes nuclear bipolar and feeds on itself! :-)

The censorship is the disturbing part (5, Insightful)

Chardish (529780) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475401)

Is the first rule of pirated movies "do not talk about pirated movies?" Why shouldn't a journalist be allowed to discuss his opinions on something that's been leaked? Why should he get fired for that, regardless of the businesses involved?

Disappointed to see all the banal Fox News bashing in the comments of an article that's largely about censorship, especially since commenters here usually rise to the defense of sites like Wikileaks.

Re:The censorship is the disturbing part (3, Insightful)

ChaoticCoyote (195677) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475531)

A vast chasm divides Wikileaks (which publishes hidden information to expose issues and problems in society) and movie piracy (which exists for the selfish purposes of greedy and impatient children). They are not the same thing, even remotely.

Re:The censorship is the disturbing part (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475539)

The first rule of pirated movies isn't don't discuss them, it's don't go out and download them, watch them, then admit you did it. You can easily write an article about a crime, without actually going out and committing it yourself.

Re:The censorship is the disturbing part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475573)

.. only when the pirated^H^H^H^H^H^H^H leaked material makes the Bush Administration look bad.

that's not the issue (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475593)

the issue is the double standard

fox and its cohorts they fund at the mpaa and riaa are always blustering about punishing piracy to the full extent of the law

now, one of their own employees does it, AND writes a column about it AND gushes how he'd rather see "I Love You Man" on his pc via piracy (the movie is still in theatres) than go out in the rain and pay a ticket to see it (someone else posted the text of the review below, see for yourself)

so this is alternately hilarious: a corporate shill gushing about the glories of piracy, and alternately galling: as another poster indicated, the guy might not even be fired. which means its perfectly ok for this stupid corporate bozo to get away with enjoying the fruits of piracy, its only us common folk who are sued into bankruptcy for the horrible, horrible crime

intellectual property is dead. commense the theatre of the absurd

Fired for reporting that BitTorrent works. (4, Insightful)

memorycardfull (1187485) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475439)

That's all.

What an idiot (1)

Jonas Buyl (1425319) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475473)

What an idiot. Wasn't too surprised he worked at Fox News though.

Shawn Hannity did the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475481)

funny that Shawn Hannity admitted on his TV show a few months back that he was given by a friend a bootleg Hollywood movie, and he is still working at fox.

Not that I want him fired, but if you want the fair and balanced info... now you know.

Even right wing hard core conservatives don't think its that bad of a crime.

of course he immediately recognized his mistake after he said it and apologized.

can anyone find a clip?

surprise surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475489)

he's an idiot, nothing else to see here.

Facts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27475607)

'When we advised Fox News of the facts,' the statement said, 'they promptly terminated Mr. Friedman.'"

Facts always get you fired at Fox - many stories of reporters and staff getting the axe because they had some facts that didn't agree with Fox's agenda.

That aside - watching a pirated movie online is just like having stolen property in your possession. If you are aware it is stolen then you are culpable. This dumb ass actually admitted to illegal activity, of course he should be fired.

Don't bite the hand that feeds you (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475609)

So this idiot reviewed an unfinished work produced by the same corporation he worked for that he was not authorized to see, being sure to include an explanation of how easy it was to download from the 'net, and he is suprised that the corporation was upset with him? He is inciting people to commit unauthorized downloading. Granted, that is nowhere near as severe as hijacking ships off the coast of Somalia, but it is still a no-no. Even if Twentieth Century Fox's attitudes are so last century!

So he got fired for reporting... (1, Insightful)

moxley (895517) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475639)

So he basically got fired for reporting on something, I mean, everyone knows that film was leaked, it's been in the news daily....

He didn't pirate the movie.

He didn't really encourage others to do so, or tell them where to find it (not like you need to be told anyway) - unless you consider a good review an encouragement

He seemed to take a dim view of piracy in the article IIRC - other than mentioning how easy it was to find the film.

He gave the film what amounts to a rave review.

I agree that he should have known, seeing as who he worked for, that this may have been a controversial move. He probably realized that, but didn't think he'd get fired.

Now I am wondering if this is some kind of publicity stunt where they're trying to say two different things:

One, Wolverine is great, two, we don't tolerate piracy, it can cost you...

I guess if we see the guy get hired back, or find out that he wasn't really fired that may indicate that this was a manipulation of the media.

"Begs the question" (0)

FMZ (1178473) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475651)

I think he was fired for this in the last paragraph of the review: "But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security". No sir, it doesn't beg any questions. Do journalists take any English classes at all these days? Also, I think if he wouldn't have rambled on (here's a screenshot [chud.com] of the article) in one of the paragraphs about how easy it was to watch all sorts of movies online, and how he was planning on watching another pirated movie afterwards, he might not have been fired. Making a stupid decision is one thing, but acting stupidly while going through with said decision is... well... stupid.

Mr. Friedman (1)

matrixownsyou (1286206) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475659)

There really were unforeseen consequences mr. Friedman, i told u so...

BACK TO BACK!!! (1, Interesting)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 5 years ago | (#27475685)

Honestly, this movie as terrible. It was worse then X-Men 3. Unless this was the biggest cop out of all time the the theatrical release COMPLETELY different, then i feel bad for anyone that waste their money to see it. They couldn't even get the basic story elements they had set up in the X-Men movies right, let alone the actual Wolverine origin.

I know that to make films like this, they have to make concessions with the story, but why even bother calling it Wolverine, they could just call it "guy with claws movie". The best part of the movie comes when Wolvie spends time with a rural couple after his escape from Weapon X (which was less then 5 minutes of the film)and the opening montage. after that, its just BS. They even screw up and leave out all of the Weapon X brainwashing. Liev Schreiber was easily the best part of the movie, and was far better as Sabertooth then i could have hoped, I think the movie might have been better if it focused more on him. Ryan Renyolds was also great as Wade Wilson, even though in this version of the film he is in it for about 5 minutes (I refuse to acknowledge "Deadpool" at the end of the movie, that wasn't Deadpool, it was "Guy with Baraka's sword arms").

The only harm i see in reviewing this film so soon is that people will actually know how bad it is. Is it fair to REVIEW the movie based on the workprint? No it is not. But it is fair to base an opinion of it, given that all of the story elements are in place and most likely won't change prior to the final release, my personal opinion of it is that its pretty awful.



and, not that i care, Stan Lee doesnt show up in the workprint.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?