The Alex Billington blackmail scandal - Page 3

I am not part of the 'web cool kids' by any stretch but fuck Alex Billington.

That quote sounds like it came from BusterG.

I know, you loser. What with your fancy producing credit and all. I bet you wish you were the remora instead of the shark, huh?

They give out a shit-ton of swirlies, and the occasional nipple twister.

I know I'm gonna get butt-hurt for this, but because I'm interested in the subject, I'd like to play devil's advocate for a moment.

Before I start, let me make clear that this Billington guy seems like a total assclown, not just because of this incident, but because of everything I've ever read about him and everything I've ever read by him.

Also, blackmail? So not cool.

But with that out of the way, let's say that Movie Blogger "A" (I don't even want to use Billington's name in this example) learns that Universal will be showing a full, complete cut of SCOTT PILGRIM at Comic-Con. Let us also say that Movie Blogger "A" is not invited to the screening and has no real working relationship with Universal, but wants to report his "scoop" on his website.

From a journalistic standpoint, I'm okay with him doing so. The PILGRIM screening counts as news, and the blogger has the right to report it. And if the studio learns of Movie Blogger "A"'s intentions and tries to persuade him to hold the story for a pass into the screening, I'm kind of okay with that, too.

Keep in mind this scenario is somewhat different from a blogger threatening or blackmailing a studio, but similar enough I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion.

It's also worth considering that if Movie Blogger "A" has hopes of forming a working relationship with the studio, blowing the lid off their Comic-Con plans may not be the best way to go about it. But that's for the blogger to decide. Got to weigh those pros and cons.

Lastly, I was a little surprised to see that Universal acquiesced and let Billington in. I know they didn't want their big secret ruined, but not taking a stand against this kind of behavior will only encourage more of it, no?

How is the screening news? For whom is it news? For the people who were not at Comic Con and thus had no reason to know about it? Or for the people at Comic Con who would have had the surprise ruined?

It would truly be sad for every bit of surprise and mystery to be swept away. Sometimes getting/giving the "scoop" is bad for everyone.

Fair point, although I'd submit that it's up to each individual reporter/blogger to decide what qualifies as "news" and is worth sharing with their readers. Plus, there always seems to be a ton of speculation and interest before and during Comic-Con about who's going to show what and how much they're going to show.

I'm a little wary of telling someone they can't post a completely factual report just because it might ruin a surprise, or because the studio doesn't want them to, or because other websites don't want them to.

But I can also understand Movie Blogger "A" deciding against running the report because of the exact questions you just asked, Devin. Certainly seems like a sensible decision ... but one for Movie Blogger "A" to make.

^Yeah but Zak, it's not like Billington is exposing Watergate here. He's ruining a surprise designed to please fans of the Scott Pilgrim Comic and/or Edgar Wright and/or America.

How about Wright's right (see that?) to do something cool and unique?

The only affect of Billington "outing" the screenings would be negative.

Alex Billington. The name itself suggests entitled douchery.

If Devin isn't careful Alex may get his mom on the phone then he'll really be in trouble.