9 February 2001

THE UGLY: There are few things I've found more grotesque than the Internet Movie Database (imdb) asking its users to contribute to the site's budget by way of Amazon.com's new Honor System program. The idea of the system is that web site operators can ask readers to help pay for the sites by way of this honor system. It is basically a reflection of the honor system that Stephen King used to release his last book on-line. But there are a few little bits of info left out of the imdb's plea for help. (To quote, "By contributing, you are supporting the Internet Movie Database, the world's best and largest movie website.") In fact, Amazon.com owns the imdb. They paid millions for it just a year or two ago. The imdb is one of the most successful sites selling banner space and also sell videos, DVDs, books and CDs for Amazon.com. Yet, we need to help support this company. Unbelievable! (To see for yourself, click here).

But you aren't the only ones being asked to contribute to Amazon.com in a grotesque and underhanded way. Amazon finally realized that it could sell its recommendations of books to publishers for as much as $10,000 apiece after building its reputation on shared reader recommendations. Ah, the joy of the web!

BAD AD WATCH: It's a new millennium (again) and a new website, so why not a new way of tracking quotes and quote whores. So, I've decided that we'll start tracking ALL the quotes. It may seem boring at first, but just watch it grow. Peter Travers has already raved about three 2001 movies, so the wait for him to start complaining about what a crappy year it is can't be far away. I'm obviously starting a month late. The list only covers 2001 releases. And there are three categories, Major Critics, Major Junketeers and The Others. If there are any that I've forgotten, please send them in and I'll update them next weekend. Here's the list!

READER OF THE DAY: More Then A Pet writes: "Here's what I don't get: From Dino De Laurentiis various Jodie vs Julianne comments, it seems that he's saying that even before Jodie turned down the role, he knew that she was wrong for the part. Here's a paraphrase of the various things he's said:

"I have to be honest here. When I read the book, even before I started to think about who would be the director, I said, 'Jodie Foster, she's wrong for Starling here." "Foster was wrong for the movie, in my opinion," "I was glad she turned it down"

Here's the question: If Dino knew Foster was wrong for the part, why did he offer it to her in the first place? I don't think Foster has some legal right to play her character. I think the real reason is that he's mad at her for suggesting that she would play the part if it was rewritten when she was going to turn it down all along, and right now he's just getting back at her."

Super G writes: "I take exception to B. the Canadian's comments. I'm well aware of the intensity of some fanboys' wish to view Cox's performance as superior to Hopkins - but it isn't. Fanboys like to complain that Hopkins was "hammy" - he wasn't; his performance was subdued, it was the reactions he provoked (even in the audience) that went over the top. The Lecter of Manhunter was Thomas Harris' "first attempt at metamorphosis", letting the devil get his due. The first Lecter was somebody who murdered coeds. Cox was only obliged to be scary, which he wasn't particularly, grumpy yes, memorably terrifying? No. Unlike the fanboys, I saw Manhunter when it came - and went - to theatres. The Lecter of Silence was assigned a much more complicated task by Harris: he needed to not only frighten the audience half to death, he had to seduce them in general and the heroine in particular. He did both. But - playing shrink - isn't the cause of the fanboys' affection for Cox linked to the fact that Hopkins' Lecter had to deliver some of the gayest lines ever written, while convincing the audience of his attraction to the heroine? I think it's Lecter's sexual ambiguity, which Hopkins finely tuned, which disturbs the fanboys. Cox was easier to categorize: disgruntled psychiatric worker syndrome. The Lecter of Silence - and Hannibal - is a whole different animal.

And this from the SouthWest: "Given your readership, I would love to see a long-standing dialogue begin in The Hot Button about (the corporatization of entertainment), and I think the proper way to start the debate, now that you yourself are out from under Time Warner's roof, would be to disclose where and how Roughcut itself felt these forces. If there are moments where you bumped heads with higher-ups elsewhere in Time Warner and it affected your content -- and I feel there must be -- I think your readers would find it fascinating. If it really truly was limited to things like the Osmosis Jones preview, then it was; at the same time, I couldn't read Mark Wheaton's give-these-guys-an-Oscar rave about Dungeons & Dragons' special effects without raising an eyebrow and wondering about synergy."

DAVID REPLIES: The door is open to conversation, however, it is one of the great things about roughcut.com that we were NEVER asked to offer an opinion or pitch anything by the corporation. Believe me, I have a lot to be angry about when it comes to AOL/Time-Warner these days and while silence is the better part of valor, they didn’t interfere in roughcut's editorial decisions. And the D&D piece by Mark Wheaton was all Mark. And you will rarely find a more cynical tough critic, especially of effects, than Wheaton. So, sorry to disappoint.

E ME: Fill that weekend inbox!!!