Slashdot Mirror
You Liked This Movie, Or Else
Paul Egell-Johnsen writes: "All the Norwegian news papers, and some Swedish ones, are raving about the forthcoming "Lord of the Rings" movie after a 25 minutes screening at a chateau near Cannes.
BBC reveals why the reviews are that positive, all those who atended had to sign a declaration of goodwill.
A New Zealand report spins it differently, apparaently the audience was genuinely impressed. A quote from the end of the article: 'I don't think it will be a film for children. One of the big monsters was genuinely terrifying.'" The stills which have trickled out have been impressive to me, but it's sad if a positive-news-only policy is needed to hype it.
For any of you who've never been to a film screening/preview before, this is standard practice. Critics may usually ignore it, but giving a bad review of a preview of a film could potentially hurt the it in the marketplace. Generally, they want you to give your bad review to the filmmakers and keep your mouth shut when you leave. This serves two purposes: it allows the filmmakers to make necessary changes to the film to make sure that it -doesn't- suck when it hits the market, and it ensures that they won't have to sue anyone for libel/slander after they leave the theater. Remember, this film is NOT finished. Giving a poor review of an unfinished product without copious disclaimers is considered bad journalistic practice. The movie studios just want to make sure that anyone who's not aware of what construes bad journalistic practice won't think about it, for fear of being sued. Oh, and when the critics get to review the (finished) movie this fall, bad reviews are fair game.
And the gaming world is little different: most game demos I've downloaded recently have said at the beginning something like 'not for review, this is an incomplete project'.
If anything, I'd imagine these articles are just a bit of back-stabbing from Hollywood folks who don't want to see more big-budget movies made outside Los Angeles.
When the movie is fully together, and ready for a true press-screening, then I'd say such an agreement would be *wrong* (cats and dogs living together wrong).
But in this case, we're talking about a pre-production preview, of some footage that's not cleaned up, or edited the same way as it will be in the final movie - just to gague reaction, probably to secure more funding, and build hype. That would be like a serious Computer magazine reviewing a proof-of-concept alpha release.
Let's give them time to finish the movie, and finish it right, and THEN worry about a proper review of the actual MOVIE, rather than trying to judge a MOVIE on what it's pre-production preview looks like. It's just not fair to judge at this point.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
erm - Disney INVENTED rotoscoping. In Snow White, I believe. Although Bakshi used a much more obnoxiously obvious application of rotoscoping (he did not mask the photographic look of the characters, which gave them kind of a strange super-realistic look, which was supposed to make them look more dark and magical).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The reviews at Ain't it Cool News (www.aintitcool.com) were really enthusiastic. I don't think they were coerced, at least I don't think they were coerced into saying things they wouldn't have said otherwise.
I can see the studio's side of it -- they're not showing a movie, they're showing some raw material that they're going to use to make a movie. But it was a dumb thing to make people sign those agreements, because by all accounts they weren't necessary, and now there will be a cloud of doubt hanging over the initial buzz.
Does anyone here actually know what was the actual content of this declaration?
Try to re-read the BBS article and see if it actually makes such accusations or merely mentions the fact that attendants were asked to sign some kind of declaration.
-
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
I hate to say this, but the Harry Potter books are not aimed at the same audience as Lord of the Rings.
Joanne K. Rowling's works are aimed primarily at readers around 9 to 18 years old; J.R.R. Tolkien's masterpiece is aimed more at an audience about 16-25 years old. I think many younger readers will have some difficulties grasping some of the mythos behind Lord of the Rings.
It is only coincidence that production of the Fellowship of the Ring and Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in movie form went on at the same time.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
No. The Hobbit was about a different set of characters on a very different quest. The Hobbit and LOTR are very different.
I recommend taking a look at http://www.theonering.net/. It's a pretty cool fan site imho.
Greetings Pointwood
Incidentally, according to The Digital Bits (go to their archives page and do a text-find on "Bakshi"), the Ralph Bakshi animated Lord of the Rings will be coming to DVD this year.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Of course, again, we don't know what's in a declaration of goodwill. If we're going to guess, let's use the most accurate definitions: according to the Lectric Law Library definition of "declaration":
It goes on from there, but that's the most relevant part.Next, let's look at the Merriam-Webster definition of "goodwill":
We combine the two, and get, essentially, a document saying, under penalty of perjury, you're inclined to feel kindly toward this movie. (NOTE: IANAL, and that may not even be a correct guess.)
Of course, how can they tell if you're lying? Even if you're inclined to feel kindly toward a movie doesn't mean you necessarily have to like it. I felt kindly toward Soldier going into it, since I like Kurt Russel and I like action movies. But it was utterly awful!
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Harry Potter gets even better with the third and fourth books. They're rather darker than the first, especially #4. They're better than 1 & 2 in the same way Empire Strikes Back was better than the first Star Wars.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
And then there's the sort of "goodwill" to which you donate clothes and stuff you don't need anymore, and they sell it in their thrift shop . . .
I'm not sure what sort of parallels you could draw to the movie from this, though. One thing worth noting is that the way the article presents it--no positive or negative opinions, just a simple statement of fact--is actually good, unbiased journalism, technically . . . but it's also quite maddening, because it doesn't tell us anything, give us any qualitative information on which to form an opinion. So we're all just guessing.
Tomorrow I'll try to ask the local college film professor, who is also a professional reviewer who gets to go on film junkets and the like, what exactly a "declaration of goodwill" is in this context. (If he's around--for all I know, he may be at Cannes!) If I get an answer, I'll post it to this thread.
I would like to think that a declaration of goodwill is simply a statement saying you don't start with any prejudices against the movie, before ever even having seen it. (It was phrased as a "declaration," after all, which I believe is usually something that just says "I believe such and such," not "I will not do such and such." Though IANAL.) It seems fairly obvious that a lot of journalistic folk are prejudiced against certain kinds of movies (most notably action movies, science fiction, or animation) before ever setting foot in the theaters. With rare exceptions, such people invariably write bad reviews of any genre movie, no matter how good an example it is of its genre.
For example, take a look at this bit in the NY Times (free registration, blah blah blah, I'll let someone else construct the "free" URL because I don't remember how) about upcoming video-game-based movies and how they'll probably all suck. You can see his prejudice oozing from every pore, the way he seems to think the only appeal of Tomb Raider will be Angelina Jolie's measurements and his snide comments about how, based on the 17-minute preview he saw, Final Fantasy "is based on the kind of nebulous New Age science in which the world is controlled by spirits and supernatural forces. It's best appreciated by those who have had a frontal lobotomy" and how the movie would have been better if the voice actors had done the physical acting as well--and also how he can't believe over a hundred million dollars went into making it because "there are no locations, no sets and no acting costs other than voice-overs".
Only the occasional rare genre movie (such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) can muster the snob cachet to get reviewers to overlook their prejudices. And since bad buzz, especially this early, can do irreparable harm to even the best movie (especially if it cost a lot to make), I can't blame them for wanting to avoid the unfortunate combination of prejudice and unfinished footage. Of course, I'm not sure what they could do, legally, if someone lied about his prejudices . . .
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
On the plus side, there are going to be three movies, so it'll probably be more like 6-7 hours of total running tme.
--
FWIW, from a "Note on the Text" just after the TOC on my Houghton-Mifflin edition of The Hobbit:
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Lord of the Rings: The Subtext Chronicle
Lord of the Rings: The Subtext Chronicle is a retelling of JRR Tolkien's popular Lord of the Rings, but placed in a realistic modern setting.
Stripped of its mythological atmosphere, LOTR:TSC becomes a heartwarming tale about a Little Guy who finds his heart's desire (that One Precious Thing), and about the Big Bully who tries to take it away from him.
We don't want to spoil the ending for you, so we'll just tease you with some comments from people who saw the preview:
"I yelped in surprise when Cute Penguin suddenly bit Little Guy's finger off!"
-- Linus Torvalds
"I thought the way Big Bully got it in the end was most unrealistic, not to mention unpleasant, and it sends the wrong message to young consumers."
-- Bill Gates
"I invented the palantiri, too."
-- Al Gore
"Goblins are Not Uruk-hai, and the men should have been called GNÚ/Menórians. The license on the rings was almost as bad as most software licenses are."
-- Richard Stallman
"That Longbottom Leaf is baaad sh*t!"
-- Anonymous Coward
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
God I hated that version - very disappointing. It was too much like a cartoon and not magical/ominous enough. The new version looks much more like I expect it to be - they seem to have the right sort of feel to it. I'll be there on opening day!
I personally think they are hyping Harry Potter just because it is popular with the kids. Unless they explicitly say "Harry Potter is better than Tolkien", I'd say marketing was rushing the movie to avoid conflict with LOTR, not to ursurp it.
:-)
As for it being kiddie trash, I think Harry Potter has its place. You and I might prefer Tolkien, but personally I wouldn't want to force my preferences on others. Young kids like the books, period. If anything Harry Potter could be a great stepping stone to LOTR.
In a way I can see how kids might like the story after reading the first two books. I think kids nowadays are growing up in an environment different from the one I grew up in. Although I'm not a parent, if I was one, I hope I understand the elements (beyond just the magic/wizardry) of Harry Potter that my kids resonate with. Who knows? Along the way maybe I'll see how the school environment is different from the one I grew up in, or how kids' perceptions/fears have changed over the years.
Also, Harry Potter is located in the 'Intermediate
Reading'part of the Children's book section at Borders, while LOTR is in the 'Science Fiction/Fantasy' section. I can't say I'd compare the two as complete equals (thus showing my own LOTR bias
The Lord of the Rings movies look excellent. Not too long ago, we all watched the Episode 1 trailer, and then were rather disappointed by that movie, and disgusted by the hype:quality ratio.
The Lord of the Rings movies may not have a fan base substantial enough to generate major hype, but the quality should be amzazing. Again I feel the lure of trailers.
Is it legal to restrict reviews in this manner? Are such contracts enforceable? If so, in countries with freedom-of-speech laws, can it be got round via reverse-engineering the review? I.e. I write a factual review which is positive and has lots of detail, and my friend reads between the lines and says "it sounds like this film may be a bag of shite"?
BTW, slashdot's new "ban users from posting based on their subnet" filter is really annoying. And very hypocritical, given that they regularly bash Napster for performing similar blanket bans.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I don't think a "declaration of goodwill" is a promise that you'll only say good things about the movie. It is probably a kind of confidentiality agreement, so you won't leak too many details about what you saw, or sneak a camera into the theater. So don't get your elven underwear in a bunch.
- Have a picture
Has anyone see tolkins fan page has been taken down because of legal reasons! I wonder if its because they had the trailer for the upcoming movie on there site. Anyway, it is sad, it was a very nice site.
Has anyone here ever been asked to sign such a declaration? Do any of you know the words that were used in this one, or some other one?
--
most stores don't return opened software because of piracy issues.
Could a fellow argue that when you buy software from the store, all parties involved (including the retailer) agree to the terms printed on the box, which include "end user gets full refund if end user does not agree to the full EULA, even after the box is opened"? Of course, I am probably talking out my rear end.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yeah, Donaldson stuff is pretty damn good - good 3-D characters and imaginative situations. Trouble is, Donaldson is too fond of himself. He's a great fan of using long or uncommon words to show he's clever rather than actually bcos they fit in. And he's too-obviously looked them up in the thesaurus rather than them being words he'd use naturally - the same words come up again and again (IIRC, "crepuscular" is one of his favourites in TCtU) which demonstrates a lack of real vocabulary. Both TCtU series and the Gap-war series suffer from that (in the Gap-war series, he can't get over how clever he was at inventing the matter cannon). But if you can put up with the slightly pretentious bits every now and again, Donaldson is good. The Gap-war series is brilliant for the imagination and sheer depth; just a shame it occasionally goes off the scale on the pretentiometer! Best is the short story collection "Daughter of Regals" - highly recommended. Grab.
But there is no blond human in the nine. Boromir and Aragorn are BOTH black haired, read the description of Boromir in Rivendell
Seriously, why do you even care about such a small detail? I mean, if you were going to be any more nit-picky, next thing you'll be complaining that Galadriel's fork has the wrong number of tines on it in the scene where the party eats dinner with the Elves. Or something like that.
Even the uh, "augmented" love story between Aragorn and Arwen... it doesn't bother me too much, as long as it doesn't change the main focus of the movie. I don't like it, but... it's a pretty minor detail.
If you're going to bitch about every little difference between LOTR (or any book) and the movie version... well, seriously... you know you're going to be dissappointed 100% of the time. Just stay away from the movies, and do us a favor and be quiet about it. It will be easier on all of us, including you.
http://www.bootyproject.org
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Hrm, so it's not nit-picking, but rather the fact that a change in someone's hair color is a sign of a larger problem; some faithlessness to the book?
I would agree with that, however... it does seem to me that they are staying true to the spirit of the books. The larger themes and "feel" seem to be there, at least in the snippets that have been released so far.
Remember, it's not the tines on Galadriel's fork or Boronir's hair color that made the books so wonderful in the first place. It was the amazing characters, and the amazing adventures and stories.
For example, Elijah Wood probably isn't fat enough to be a hobbit, even though Frodo was not as fat as most hobbits (and indeed, shed quite a few pounds during the journey). However, I love the choice of him as Frodo. From the pictures I've seen so far, he looks perfect for the role. That look in his eyes... it's just how I always imagined Frodo looking. A mixture of inner strength and scared shitlessness... as he embarks on a quest that he has no hope of surviving, no idea of how to accomplish, and yet the world is resting on his shoulders. To me, that's more important than details like eye color or hair color or whatever.
Now, there are a few thing that have disturbed me, from what I've heard of the second trailer... Gandalf is described as "panicky", and apparently the Nine here a whispered "my precioussssss" in the Mines of Moria. Now, Gandalf was many things, but never panicky. And the Nine never heard Gollum speak in Moria... but we can assume he was following the Nine at the time, so this "embellishment" can be somewhat understood.
Anyway, agree that changing things from the book is a Bad Thing, but I'm not going to sweat little details like hair color. Now genuine, big changes like Gandalf's character, etc, I have a tougher time swallowing, and don't like.
http://www.bootyproject.org
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Is there any more info on this "declaration of goodwill" besides the BBC article? If not, I don't think there's any way you can assume that journalists are held from making negative comments. I work in music/entertainment publicity and the term goodwill or good faith generally means that you don't misrepresent yourself. For journalists that usually means that if you are granted an interview, say, you are honest about what it's for... for example that it's for the TV show you work on and not some private book project, or that if you ask for quotes for a "story about jazz" it's not really for a story about how your ex-girlfriend says you beat her. Basically it just means that you agree to act in a professional manner.
In the case of this screening, absent other evidence, I would strongly assume that the intent was to prevent any smuggling of images or plot devices, etc... I find it extremely hard to believe that a journalist would be prevented from commenting generally that what they saw was uninteresting, poorly done, etc... Just about every news organization has strong policies that prevent all of their reporters from entering into such agreements.
Historically, the courts have been very friendly toward contracts voluntarily entered into. All contracts restrict your rights somewhat, if only in the simple sense of, "By selling this and receiving X money, you give up the right to use or access this car." As long as no coercion is used to secure the contract, how can you stake a philosophical battle over it? If people didn't want to live under the restrictions of the declaration (whatever they may be), then said people simply should not have signed.
Of course, without signing, they would be barred from the viewing. Oh, well. It's not like they --- or we -- have an unmitigated, natural "right" to see the viewing.
Whenever someone throws a tantrum over a ficticious "violation" of their Constitutional guarantees, it cheapens those guarantees and makes it harder for more rational people to safeguard them when they really matter and are really under assault.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
As a Tolkien fan, I've been watching the progress of the movie with some care, and I'd like to say that I'm quite happy with the way it is supposed to be going. While I do not intend to spoil your experience (this you can do at theonering.net), it seems to me that the movie is in good hands. As far as I see it, it is neither an over-simplification, nor an exact duplicate of the books.
Superficially, Tolkien's style may appear obscure and overcomplicated. However, when one considers it, it is only natural that the characters have be submerged so deep into the universe Tolkien described, since it is their universe. It is impossible to make LoTR a movie directly from the books: too much of the "action" occurs in the characters' thought or surfaces in their memory. A movie needs to focus us on a set certain plots.
As I said earlier, the forthcoming movie seems to do quite a good job in staying true to LoTR and in the same time transforming it into a movie. This is one film I'm going to see this winter.
Let's be realistic here. What the declaration of goodwill means is that in return for getting a chance to see an advanced preview of an unfinished work, you agree that you won't rag on it, BECAUSE IT'S AN UNFINISHED WORK - but you can feel free to talk about how cool it is.
I think this is pretty reasonable, in this context (a screening of an unfinished artistic work). If you had walked in on Picasso producing one of his works, and you had been allowed to view the unfinished canvas, it would have been in awefully bad taste if you had told everyone how much it sucked.
Give the guys a break, and let them finish making their movie. THAT's what the declaration of goodwill means.
But is it binding. Hell if I know. I'd have to read the declaration first, after babelfish translates it from French.
144l. ph34r my 133t l3g4l 5k1lz!
During the Opening credits:
"This film is licensed for you one time only in the exchange for the fee of a movie ticket, or a movie rental, all for the purposes of your viewing pleasure. Ownership for puroses of indefinite viewing is prohibited under Law."
[Insert incredible legalese for 1 to 5 minutes of scrolling]
"In exchange for the priveledge of viewing this entertainment, you also agree to not write or speak about about elements of this entertainment in a public or private forum without prior approval of the proprietors of the establishment providing you with this licensed viewing, and the owners of this Licensed property. This prohibition includes discussion and opinion expressed on TV shows, Radio shows, message forums, and other media online and offline."
[Insert more legal blather]
" If you dis-agree with these conditions, Please Leave the theater now and Ask for a refund. If You are viewing via a rental, cancel the streaming media immediately and ask your service provider for as refund. Violation of this license can lead to substantial fines and imprisonment"
Seems like something that someone might want someday.
Terry Gillium ought to do a satirical film with just this sort of premise.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
It seems to me that there are two likely possibilities for the content of the declaration. It could be a promise not to say anything negative. Since we haven't seen anything negative it's hard to dismiss this. However I would have expected at least someone to squeal long and loud about it if this were the case. All we've had is one line in a single story.
The other possibility is that the declaration was an agreement not to review the footage as it isn't finished. Something along the lines of "describe what you see here if you like, but please don't review it". This is something that the guy from New Line, and the director Peter Jackson who introduced the showing reportedly stressed. I hope and think this is more likely.
I'm surprised -- talk about a totally unnecessary tactic. They should have taken the conventional hollywood approach to bad press, if they were worried about it.
Before:
"This was an unbelievably bad movie. There was absolutely nothing worthwhile about it. You'd be better off if you don't bother to see this movie and decided upon just staying at home."
After:
"This was...unbelievably...worthwhile...don't bother...staying at home."
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
How good can it be when they get simple details wrong? Have you seen the trailer? At the end it has the party climbing through mountains (presumably Caradhras, though not certain). Not only does Gandalf look unlike himself (Charlton Heston or even Sean Connery would have looked better), but they got something else strangely wrong. There is a blond haired, bearded human walking with the party. Rounded ears, he's human, not Legolas.
But there is no blond human in the nine. Boromir and Aragorn are BOTH black haired, read the description of Boromir in Rivendell. So how can we trust the judgement of moviemakers who can't be bothered to research the characters they're representing?
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Have you ever seen a fantasy novel where the cover painting of the characters bears almost no resemblance to the actual characters in the book? Refer to almost any cover illustration ever done by Darrel K. "The Mangler" Sweet to see what I mean.
Some people are incapable of reproducing things accurately, and they're not to be blamed (or employed). Others simply aren't devoted enough to care.
The tines on Galadriel's fork? Well, it would be very cool if they reproduced details that small. But I don't consider trying to make the characters look their their counterparts unimportant. It doesn't even need to involve casting! Just give him a shave and some black hair coloring for god's sakes. But they can't be bothered.
It's this attitude of "ahh fuckit, who cares?" that will doom a movie version of a book to fail.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
But I always considered Boromir's appearance to be a minor plot point: He's dark haired and grey eyed like Aragorn, but Aragorn passes the test of the Ring and Boromir does not. I always saw that as Tolkien saying, "See, this is not a physical thing, the blood of Westernesse is a quality of character more than of body."
But whatever.
Elijah Wood for Frodo? I suppose it could work, though to me he'll always seem too young for the role. He'll be great for the Long Expected Party, but he's almost 50 (can't remember exactly) when he leaves on the quest.
Gandalf being panicky is definitely not good. I can remember him being excited, even (as Treebeard would put it), hasty, but never panicked.
And as for gollum... there are some things that don't lend themselves to the big screeen very well. In LOTR, the only indication of a pursuer was when the Hobbits would hear Gollum's feet behind them in the caves. This sort of subtlety is simply lost utterly in a movie, especially with a soundtrack playing. So they probably decided to make Gollum's pursuit more obvious.
I mean, cmon - it'll still be a suprise to the ones who've never read LOTR, and those who have will already know he's there. I guess it can't hurt that much. What worries me more are the plans for Aragorn and Arwen. I am SERIOUSLY upset the more I read about this.
The love of Aragorn for Arwen Undomiel is MOST importantly an unrequited love. Elrond has told him that he will give his daughter to no lesser man than the King of a reunited Gondor and Arnor. And I worry about the characterization of Arwen. They're probably going to get some hollywood bimbo with glitter on her cheeks to fall all over Aragorn. God only knows if there'll be a tawdry sex scene.
The REAL Arwen is over 2500 years old at the beginning of the War of the Rings! An attempt should be made to show how lonely and sad and ageless she is. And her beauty shouldn't be the blinding beauty of a hollywood sex goddess, but the sublime beauty of a elven Queen, living vision of Luthien.
How likely is it that any moviemaker can ever pull these off in a way that has "mass market" appeal? LOTR was popular but never on the scale of the mass market.
At best this movie will probably just make me feel, "Wow, this strange movie bears a striking resemblance to the Lord of the Rings."
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
He was 33 (his coming of age) at the long expected party. But it several years later before he left on the quest. I believe it was 9 years later, but I'm not exactly certain. That would make him at least 42.
Plus the most popular book ever is, of course, the Bible. Ask any publisher. The Bible has mass market appeal. The LOTR does not. LOTR has quite a few million sold. The Bible has well over 2 billion sold. As for mass market, I mean something that the majority (ie the lowest common denominator) will enjoy. The whole concept of mass market is to cater to the lowest common denominator - you'll have the largest posible market that way. Not that I want a LOTR movie that caters to the lowest common denominator. But any offering that aims higher will lose market appeal in direct correlation to how much higher it aims. Any faithful representation of the LOTR on the big screen, I feel will have a fairly small audience.
It's not going to work out well. The Tolkien fans will all be miffed over some story change. And of the non Tolkien fans, maybe 70% will just be confused and not get it. This is assuming a faithful rendering, of course. If they dumb it down and cast Tom Hanks as Aragorn and Britney Spears as Arwen then I think it will have tons of fans.
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
Manufacturing Consent
Ewige Blumenkraft!
Ewige Blumenkraft!
"Wrong country, the article fails to mention the US. Different laws in different countries, think about it. Although I think it is wrong though to make people sign such contracts, this didn't occur in the US. "
Yes, actually it does, all the time. When was the last time you ever saw benchmarks comparing the performance of Windows 2000 Server to NT Server? Microsoft uses such "agreements" to supress such information. Recently, there was a supressed test that showed that SQL server was faster under NT than 2000.
I wouldn't doubt that before long, Intel takes similar measures to pevent their processors from being accurately benchmarked against AMD chips without fear of legal harassment.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
"Stuff like that. Anyway, I'll reiterate how helplessly useless american laws are in other countries and congradulate you on such great election results. Yeesh."
Despite the flamebaiting, you DO have an interesting point... Since most corporations these days (especially software, media and entertainment) are international these days, what binding would such "waiver" have on you were you an American who saw it, thought it sucked, went back to the USA and banged out your column stating just that?
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I would suspect the primary enforcement is that, if you break the agreement, you won't get invited to any more early screenings. If a critic were to piss off enough studios in this manner he might soon find himself hard-pressed to find material to review.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Was that the animated version that was drawn completely over the traditionally shot footage? I've only seen it as a grainy, oft-copied bootleg.. and it only went part of the way through the film, but it it was brilliantly done...