|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Projectionist loses job after panning movie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-16-2007 06:22 PM
My own opinion, I think it's bullshit for the guy to be fired outright for posting his review. The projectionist, Jesse Morrison, might have deserved to be written up, but I think that's about it.
If I was the manager, the only way I would have fired him is if he was already on thin ice for lots of other issues. If he was a good employee I would have tried hard to save his job.
The fact he posted the movie prior to its release shows that he viewed the movie in the capacity of a theater employee or member of the press. Fox does have a legitimate gripe about that.
In the projectionist's defense, he probably didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Lots of people see pre-release screenings of movies and post online reviews well before they're supposed to do so. It's a common practice. I even see that here on occasion in Film-Tech's own movie review forum. The first review for Fantastic 4: The Rise of the Silver was posted in the F-T movie reviews forum on Wednesday, two days before the actual release.
On a basic level Jesse Morrison is guilty of conflict of interest. Movie theaters are supposed to sell as many tickets as they can. Having an employee saying the product is shit will undermine that goal of selling tickets. It doesn't matter if the product really is shit. You have to sell that product anyway or find a job doing something else that you can actually take pride in doing.
I feel once the movie is released, a theater employee can post a review of a movie online -just as long as he is doing it on his own free time and not disclosing the details of his day job at a movie theater. If he says, "I'm a projectionist at Malco Theaters and I think this movie sucks," then he is demonstrating conflict of interest.
Overall, I'm surprised Fox even gives a shit. Millions of people spout all sorts of stuff on 'blogs and because of all the wild crap posted on many of them it undermines their credibility. This new Fantastic 4 sequel will be seen by lots of people who don't even give a damn about critics anyway.
This issue also exposes the really nasty attitude some executives have against anyone with the title of "employee." Some of those attitudes turn into policies that are stupidly self-destructive. For instance, there's at least a couple of major movie theater chains who will fire any employee on the spot if they fail to upsell other concessions items to an anonymous checker. There's no appeal. It doesn't matter if it's a great employee who has been with the theater for years and trying to get into management. He or she is automatically gone. Simple as that. And then the theater has to try to find a replacement worth a damn who's also willing to work for shit pay. That's pretty hard to do, at least around here.
quote: Dave Williams
We have absolutely no data proving that this $7 and hour moron was any good to begin with. The mere fact that he was paying more attention to his aspiring movie critic career than with his booth duties is enough for me to sack the jerk.
Dave, you're making an angry sounding assumption that the projectionist wasn't doing his job in the booth. Calling that assumption "mere fact" needs to be backed up with some specific proof. The article only commented on his movie reviews, not the quality of his on the job performance.
quote: Joe Redifer
What I'm wondering about is how they tracked it down to him. Didn't he write under a pseudonym? What gave him away? You can't punish someone you can't find.
This is one of the reasons why it is easy to figure Fox was behind the firing.
A lone theater manager doesn't have the resources to investigate traffic on the Internet. Major movie studios do. They have employees and other subcontractors hired to try to fight piracy on the Internet. They can direct those same resources against someone posting opinions on a 'blog.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 06-17-2007 11:58 AM
quote: Kurt Zupin
For a movie company to have the power over a theater to have some one fired is ungodly wrong. And should not be tolerated.
1. Film company spends $XX,000,000,000 to make and distribute a movie.
2. Same company holds an advance screening, required by anti-blind bidding laws in some states. Were it not for that, the company would have no obligation to show us what we'd be booking.
3. Employee of screening contractor watches presentation, which was exclusively intended for the use of bookers and exhibitors. Rather than, at most, "consume" the product for his own personal enjoyment, the employee uses his advance knowledge to publicly blast the studio's work.
4. Studio, perhaps upset that their product has been used in this manner, apparently communicates this to the screening exhibitor; possibly hinting that it wouldn't make sense to continue screenings with that exhibitor under such hostile conditions.
5. Exhibitor, availing to themselves their rights as employers, fixes the problem by removing employee from access to said screenings, with a possible termination in the works.
I don't see why anyone here should fall on the side of the employee here. If I had such an investment in a product, why would I want to make it available to a company that allowed its resources to be used to disparage my product on a rather well-produced global forum? The employer seems to have recognized that they don't want to be in that position, and dealt with a common-sense issue in a quick, positive and final manner.
Past that, how a company deals with their employee problems, especially at the entry level, is pretty much their business. I don't think an employer should be required to be a "stupid move testing ground" for its staff. Most companies would be tough to manage if they had to let everyone have a free pass on idiotic stunts.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Joel N. Weber II
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 115
From: Somerville, MA, USA
Registered: Dec 2005
|
posted 06-17-2007 12:21 PM
quote: Dave Williams
What you are not seeing in the big picture is that the employer cannot discuss the performance of this employee, as they are held to strict confidentiality rules regarding current and past employees. The employee here has the advantage of being able to say anything he wants to say on the issue and all the company can do is grin and bare it.
Is this explicitly required by law in the US? I'd been under the impression that slander and libel are illegal, and that large companies typically have policies against saying things that someone might be inclined to argue were libelous and/or slanderous to reduce the risk of getting sued, but that an employer doesn't necessarily have different rights as the law is written than an employee in this regard, just (perhaps) different internal policies.
The website Anslem linked to has this:
quote:
It has been asked several times, whether I signed a confidentiality statement. I did not, nor was I told to stop writing reviews.
When I've worked for a for-profit software company, they've expected me to sign something regarding confidentiality, and that seems to be a completely standard practice in the software industry. So I think someone at the studio and/or this theater screwed up in not getting him to sign something, if they did feel a need to maintain this confidentiality.
He also writes:
quote:
I built the 5 reels onto a platter, threaded it, and screened it for a few of the executives, another employee, or two and a couple of their friends and colleagues.
The ``friends'' part is a little surprising to me if this was supposed to be a confidential screening, too.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 06-17-2007 12:29 PM
quote: Dave Williams
What you are not seeing in the big picture is that the employer cannot discuss the performance of this employee, as they are held to strict confidentiality rules regarding current and past employees.
Dave, that "big picture" claim does not qualify as proof at all. You're still making a angry toned prejudicial guess that this guy was goofing off at his job. You really don't have any proof that he was doing so.
quote: Dave Williams
There is no angry assumptions here. I am merely pointing out that I think he is a moron, and also pointing out that we are not going to get to know the other side of the story.
So you're going to literally make up the other side of the story?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I have a spotless criminal record, but I would be terrified if someone falsely accused me of a crime and I had to stand trial for it. That's because a lot of people just make flippant judgments against someone without really knowing all the facts and just feeding off emotion. They just figure, "he's gotta be guilty of something!" The fact that justice literally has to be bought in this nation anymore makes the prospects even more scary. In that Duke lacrosse team rape trial, if the defendants hadn't been a few rich white kids no one would have figured out the D.A. was trying to railroad them into jail. They would have just been convicted.
Prejudice sucks ass.
quote: Jack Ondracek
I don't see why anyone here should fall on the side of the employee here. If I had such an investment in a product, why would I want to make it available to a company that allowed its resources to be used to disparage my product on a rather well-produced global forum?
I think if the guy is posting his reviews online after the movie is released to the public and not letting anyone know he is a movie theater projectionist then he's not doing anything wrong.
Obviously he must not have kept the details of his employment secret enough.
Overall, this sort of thing is a slippery slope. And just siding 100% with the employer on firing that projectionist is more than a little contradictory to the spirit of this forum.
If it's OK for one theater chain to fire a guy for posting his reviews, then there's a bunch of people on this very forum whose jobs could be put into jeopardy by posting their thoughts and opinions about various issues of movies and their presentation.
I would very much prefer to have more projectionists and other theater employees and technical workers posting here. But they'll get shut up quick if theater chains take a militant stance against their online speech. And then this forum would be in deep trouble. Just something to think about.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[sex]](graemlins/sex.gif)
it, I've had enough" moments that I have every once in a while myself with employees.
Printer-friendly view of this topic