I dunno, it's so crazy it might be true. This is Scientology we're talking about here.

And why does Rupurt Murdoch look like he's wearing a tiny little hair hat?

Don't they know that the old movie distribution model is dead? Someone tell them with a pipe bomb of knowledge/well-thought-out blog post that a copy of Final Cut and a video phone camera is all you need to make movies in this modern worlds.

TheGreatZarquon: Think about that if you ever get suckered into one of their "Free Personality Tests" at the mall.

They have that at your mall too? I thought it was a Clearwater thing.

So what would have happened if he praised the film?

ahnuts: Not only did he promote the piracy of Wolverine, he mentioned in the article that he was planning on pirating other movies as well to review them and talked about how great and easy it was to watch them in the comfort of your home before they're released on DVD


You would think that any film critic is a movie lover. No movie geek is going to promote piracy. You're not going to see Roger Ebert telling everyone to hit PirateCove.com. The guy sounds like a douchebag.

baltimoreblonde: I'd love to come across one of them. I'd love to ask them what I get if my personality gets an A. Then walk away laughing

There was a Scientology kiosk at Countryside Mall. I asked the attending girl about Xenu and all that shiat. I honestly feared for my life. Well not actually feared because I was in a mall but I definitely thought I'd be put on a list.

Shenanigans!: Sodden Moxie: if he was fired because of the article, then his editor, if he had one, should have gotten the axe, too.

Exactly. Where's this part of the story? While Scientologists may or may not have had anything to do with it, there's definitely more to the story.

Not really, or necessarily. First off, he may not have had an editor per se, he may just have had someone who approved the story and ran it. OTOH, when a firing has to happen for PR reasons as it was in this case (does anyone really think a review of a pirated movie a week before the release mattered a whole lot over the long run?) the visible person is the one who gets nailed, rather than the invisible person(s) who actually greenlighted the story.

An extreme example was when Dan Rather "resigned" because of the fake Bush National Guard memo. It wasn't that anything was affected by the whole thing (Bush was in office; his second term so reelection wasn't an issue) but everyone looked bad, so the visible person had to leave. Not that this was such an earthshaking issue, but: fire the guy everyone's looking at. Editors are harder to replace.