SpoutBlog on spout.com

It’s quite convenient for Warner Bros. that Time magazine, a fellow Time Warner subsidiary, has been able to break the review embargo on Watchmen. Though (geek blogger and Simpsons executive producer) Matt Selman acknowledges the embargo, he neither considers himself press nor his post on Time’s Nerd World blog a review. Still, his gushing write-up, in which he avoids discussing plot points and attempts to steer clear of technically labeling the movie good or bad, has stirred up some controversy regarding what constitutes a review and what is permissible during a review embargo. I’m sure that Warner Bros. would have no problem quoting Selman in ads for Watchmen, so the studio should consider the post completely equivalent to a film review.

Now, thanks to the controversy surrounding Selman’s apparently planted “review,” the inevitable Watchmen backlash hath begun. Fark.com headlined its link to Selman’s piece in a way that presumed the highly anticipated graphic novel adaptation is going to be a disappointment. And Defamer followed its own response to the Selman write-up with another post panning a new clip from the film. Keep reading after the jump to find more negativity that erupted today in the wake of the Selman sell.

• Let’s begin with a straight-up comment on Selman’s blog post, from Michael Dance of TheCinemaSource.com: “Yeah, sorry, but this is a review. You described the film (”95 percent of the words and ideas in this movie are all Moore”), gave your take on it, and theorized how other people would receive it. And, sorry again, but you are press. You’re writing for a blog on a Time Magazine domain and I’m pretty sure you’re getting paid. All of us other press folks really want to talk about it too. But we’re not Time, so we can’t get away with it.”
• Elsewhere, most of us first learned of Selman’s piece from Jeff Wells, who claims to take no side on the issue yet refers to the post as “whorish and insipid remarks.” He also passes along a friend’s reaction to the film, which the unidentified journalist calls “a staggering failure” that is “empty, inert, meandering and, yes, boring” and “horribly acted throughout.” It’s also worth noting that he admits to having enjoyed the first 20 minutes of footage originally shown to excited journalists in the past.
• Wells later posted again on the subject to reaffirm his no-sides stance. But he also had this to say about Selman: “Has anyone noticed, incidentally, that Selman hasn’t written a word on Nerdworld since yesterday afternoon’s blow-up? What a lazy fuddy-dud candy-ass he must be. Can you imagine being silent after igniting a firestorm of this sort? Is Selman hiding out?”
• David Poland sighs and offers his two cents on the issue at The Hot Blog: “The funny thing to me is, I have had this same reaction to ‘early’ reviews. But unlike this guy - who is smart enough to exec produce The Simpsons, but who is not smart enough to understand the concept of an embargo…. or the studio isn’t smart enough to explain it to him - I have always been told by the studio when I can go early and am completely transparent about that being the case. That is likely the case here… even more likely that he is a friend of the director’s. But the kind of flip, ‘I’m not really a journalist’ crap… well, we all know where we have heard that before.”
• “This is sheer bullshit,” complains CHUD’s Devin Faraci, “And I hope that the next time some studio flack talks about how online breaks embargo, they remember that it was Time fucking Magazine that did it. And let it be noted that I have no problem with the embargo and with Warner Bros enforcing it; I have a problem with certain elements in the media believing that they’re above it all.
• “Obviously the idea of being first in the online world isn’t only reserved for quick-to-the-draw Ain’t It Cool News talkbackers,” writes Brad Brevet in a sort of roundup of the backlash on RopeofSilicon.com, “And if you are under the impression having the first official review of a major geekdom film is not a big deal in terms of traffic and exposure guess again. Just last year I was one of the first ten online reviewers to post a review of The Dark Knight and my review enjoyed quite the favorable hit count as a result. Trust me, there is a legitimacy to Devin’s rant.”
• Brad also references two earlier backlash articles (from Wired and the NY Times) regarding the labeling of Zach Snyder as “visionary” in ads.
• Here is another early “non-review” review from Australia.
• And here is a spoiler-heavy reader’s review via LatinoReview.com.
• And another spoiler-heavy reader’s review via Aint It Cool News.