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.

Comments

I don't see the problem with this...

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I understand, this solely a preview screening of an incomplete movie; studios routinely ask people not to even review such previews because they're not the complete film (many movies, for example, will be previewed with half the CGI shots missing), and because people who've abused the trust in the past and trashed a movie based on the pre-release cut they saw have caused considerable damage to what turned out to be good movies by the time they were completed and released to the public. I would imagine this 'declaration of goodwill' is just such an agreement.

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.

Re:A Vision of the Future

[Chris Johnson]

Since "Sit On My Face" has been deemed illegal for broadcast by the FCC in a ruling that clearly also makes "I Bet You They Won't Play This Song On The Radio" also illegal (because it clearly implies obscene words are being _intended_), I would like to see the Pythons get together for a new 'song'...

Cleese: Good evening. Upon learning of the new FCC ruling in America that made our classic piece of musical mayhem,
Sound Effects: *bleep*
Cleese: ...on my...
Sound Effects: *bleep*
Cleese: ...illegal for broadcast, we of Python decided to rise stiffly to the occasion through the release of a new song. After much debate and Welsh argument, we have triumphantly settled on a musical performance of great historical importance, which we bring to you today.
Cleese: And so, we are proud to present- John Cage's 4'33"- the unexpurgated version.
Cleese: This famous piano piece caused a scandal when first performed, as it consists entirely of rests, with no sounds in it at all. But that's nothing to the recently unearthed unexpurgated version! Until recently, this version was deemed too naughty for public consumption- and thanks to our Yank friends, it still is, to which we at Python say: 'nuts to them!'.
Cleese: For those wondering how a piano piece composed entirely of silences can be naughty- the pianist is showing. And, in an even bolder gesture of defiance to social mores, the unexpurgated version of 4'33"s score specifies that he is thinking of fondling a tit during the performance.
Cleese: I see our musical artiste is ready to perform, so without further ado- John Cage's 4'33", the unexpurgated version.

Sound Effects: *a bit over thirty seconds of silence*

Sound Effects: *approaching siren, car stops, door opening and closing, whispering*

Cleese: What do you mean, copyrighted work? Wait, stop, let go of me, I can explain!

Sound Effects: *Cleese dragged off, FIN*

An unfortunate policy, but...

[astrashe]

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.

Re:An unfortunate policy, but...

[mikethegeek]

"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."

This kind of stupidy pervades the whole entertainment industry these days. Rather than produce the best product they can, they'd rather produce schlock like Britney Spears, "The Mummy" etc, and then spend more money MARKETING them than they would have had to to produce a good product. But then, a good product in the world of entertainment requires creativity, and creativity is unpredictable. Unpredictability is bad for the bottom line.

Goes back to what I tell everyone about reading ANYTHING in the media... Don't believe them until you see it for yourself. If you go see the movie and you think it's great, then it's GREAT. If you go see it and you think it sucks, then it SUCKS (which is what I thought of Titanic and SW Episode I, despite how BADLY I wanted to love it.)

If the movie you go to SUCKS in your opinion, be more wary of going to the next movie made by that producer/writer/director/actors/movie company.

Before making any wild accusations...

[XNormal]

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.

-

Re:"Declaration of goodwill"

[Robotech_Master]

I know that "goodwill" in the business sense is something entirely different from what we laypeople think of. In the business sense, if I recall rightly, it has to do with buying out another company--goodwill is how much more a company's assets are worth than what you paid for it.

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 . . .
--

LoTR: The Subtext Chronicle

[Black Parrot]

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

--

"Declaration of goodwill"

[grytpype]

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.

What exactly is the restriction?

[Floyd Turbo]

I read the BBC article, and all it says on the point is that people attending had to sign a "declaration of goodwill". That's not the same, IMHO, as a requirement that any stories printed must be positive. It certainly seems to me that you can write a negative review without violating "goodwill".

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?
--

I think the "goodwill" premise is ill-informed

[Flailey]

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.

Not Censorship b/c Not the Government

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

Whatever happened to the concept that *NO* law, contract, etc, could circumvent your Constitutional rights?

Um, exactly what Constitutional right would that be? The First Amendment does not say you can say whatever you want. It says the government cannot regulate what you say.

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.

A Vision of the Future

[Alien54]

Maybe I just need coffee, but I just had this flash of speculation of some aspects UCITA copyright law and licensing being applied to entertainment. Of course this is Europe, where they don't do things quite the same way as in the US. and UCITA is not the same as the DCMA

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

Overreaction and speculation?

[RedWizzard]

In the five or six pieces I've read about the footage only the BBC one mentions the declartion of goodwill. Even the BBC mention is just a single sentence with no information on the actual content of the thing. So maybe all this fuss over one sentence out of hundreds is a bit of an overreaction. Still, it's fun to speculate.

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.

Completely unnecessary...

[wrinkledshirt]

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."