Movies News
By M&C Movie News Jun 20, 2007, 8:17 GMT
Projectionist fired for bad movie review
And Also
Latest Headlines in Movies
- 1. Pattinson, Ravin, Brosnan in new 'Remember Me' trailer
- 2. Vampire mayhem in second 'Daybreakers' trailer
- 3. Pearce feeling 'Hungry'
- 4. Donnelly and Oppenheimer go for 'Fortune'
- 5. Anthony Peckham to immerse in 'Deep Sea'
Older Talkback
Uh, what all these articles seem to forget is that he would have been under some sort of confidentiality agreement that he would have broken in doing this (as an actual employee of the theater chain). It's his own fault, sorry. I would understand if he had been invited to a press screening to review it, but if he was reviewing the movie without permission and before it was officially released, then he should be sacked. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that it was a negative review, that seems to be the 'get-out-free' card that is being used, it is the fact that he would have broken a confidentiality agreement.
Not necessarily. projectionists don't usually fill out paperwork about movies they screen. They simply have a shot to see movies the night before they actually come out, since that is when they reel them up for the next days' shows.
I know, I did this job.
Even 'sneak preview' shows don't usually come with confidentiality agreements.
The only way a projectionist should have been legally bound not to say anything should have been if he was part of a preview screening not for release to the public, such as a screening of an early cut of the film before being rated, which would have been a couple of months ago, most likely.
If this review of his came out within the current release timeframe (i.e. he watched it when it got to his theatre) then I don't see any LEGAL grounds for getting fired. However, most projectionists don't work under contract and can get fired for any reason or no reason at all.
This is garbage in my opinion. He might have a case for lawsuit and I would look into it if I were him.
#1 so u r saying if he would have written a positive review he would still have been fired, get real, the guy got fired coz of his negative review, case closed. movie studios bank a lot on reviews, obviously, they cant do anything to ebert & roopert, so they squash the lil guys, if anything this is just a lesson in the realities of life, free speech ain't always welcome.
In a previous article about this, it stated that the guy did NOT sign a confidentiality agreement. There was even a comment from his boss stating that they'd make all their employees sign one now, and that he regretted not making this guy sign one.
Since supposedly, the guy had written early reviews before and no issue was made of it, he should have been warned and asked to sign a confidentiality agreement. If he refused, THEN he should have been fired.
I see it simply as a conflict of interest issue. The movie chain is trying to pack as many people in its theaters as possible. As an employee of the movie chain that should have been his goal. He instead wrote a negative review of the very product his employer is trying to sell. He has a choice, either a projectionist or reviewer. I agreed with his review but I would have fired him on the spot.
Yeah, I've done the projectionist's job too, and you're missing the point. If he viewed it DURING an early screening (for legitimate reviewers), he STILL would NOT be covered, but you're implying that he had access to view it when he was reeling it up the night BEFORE it was released. THAT is DEFINITELY NOT covered. And even less so for the purposes of publishing a review.
I agree completely with the 'conflict of interest' position. A reviewer, by definition, has to be an independent 'free agent'. An employee of the theater, again by definition, needs to serve the best interests of his employer.
These two positions are obviously in direct opposition to each other. He's lucky he was only fired. They could have easily sued him instead, if they chose to....Something that the poster(poser) who suggested HE sue THEM should have thought about.
If there's any suing to be done, this guy is going to be on the receiving end of the subpoena, imho.
It doesn't matter what he signed or didn't sign - they have the right to fire him for doing anything that shows them in a poor light. I don't believe Fox would be involved tho - I mean - honestly - how popular could this guys blog really be?
Suppose one owned a restaurant and one of your employees posted a review in a local newspaper that your restaurant served horrible food and that diners should avoid the restaurant. Wouldn't one fire the employee for doing such a thing? For my part, maybe I'd forgive the employee after a very stern warning, but I suppose that an employer is within is rights to terminate an employee for such behavior unless a contract provision allows for such activity.
Being a movie reviewer myself, I can say that even positive reviews -- released too early -- can set the phones to ringing from upset publicists. Often the film distributors have signed exclusivity agreements with other press outlets to have first run rights on reviews; having a blogger beat them to the punch causes all kinds of headaches for the distributors.
Yeah, that analogy doesn't really work well. In a restaurant, you're serving food you've created yourself...it only reflects on you. In a movie theater, though, you're just providing access to something someone else did. If a neutral third-party wrote a review for a movie, it wouldn't reflect on the theater. However, any neutral review of a restaurant DOES reflect on the restaurant itself.
That having been cleared up, I don't really think the guy would have any case for a lawsuit. Did he honestly think the theater would be fine paying him to review their movies?
If he wrote the review on his own time after work, they have no legitimate reason to fire him unless his employment agreement expressly states that he is forbidden from making comments on company business.
He wrote the review under an assumed identity for crying outloud. He didn't give his name, employee number and what theatre he works at so it is BS to say his employer was directly damaged by it. All theatres would have been damaged equally.
He is a film and journalism student who is going to school to be a movie reviewer.
You can't tell me his bosses didn't know about this already. It was probably a selling point to give him the job. That is a guy who always needs to be at work and be on top of his job. It saves him a ton of money and ensures the theatre has someone really dedicated to their job.
While the theatre would have minor reason to fire him for causing seats to go empty. They had to have known he was doing this and he had to have written a bad review before.
The only people who should be really pissed about a bad review would be FOX since they are the ones sitting on top of hundreds of millions in losses once everyone knows what a crappy movie this is. (YEah I saw it on opening night and this was the first time in my 30 years of movie going that I feel I deserved a refund! Seriously).
So yeah this kid is getting screwed for having good taste and for doing what we have told him to do since he was 5 years old and started school.
'Figure out what you want to do in life, and go after it. Reach for your star and work hard and eventually with a little luck and alot of faith, someone will utterly and completely screw you over simply because they can'.
Have fun kids. It's just your life.
Wow - you movie guys really are total losers. Talk about a non-story.
If he knows it's crap and we know it's crap and the prodco knows it's crap, then speak the truth. Pay the employee for the job done, and don't think that gets you a free string tied to the 'lying brain'. Don't like the truth? Don't foist crap! - and worse, don't hide it so people waste money on your junk! Somebody ought to fire *you*, corporate deceiver!!! Jezebel! Whatever!!.
Whew. Cigarette. Not.
What are you people on? He was an at will employee. He could be fired for any reason or no reason. The only restriction is if he had been fired for a prohibitted reason. This includes firing for failure to have sex with your boss, due to race, sex or religion, (or in some states, sexual orientation). They can absolutely fire him for this. No question. Not really a tough legal issue.
he definitely deserves to be fired!
and perhaps thrown in jail.
h t t p: / / w w w . w a l l p a p e r d o j o . c o m
Some jerk writes one of 5000 reviews and he gets fired from his job as movie buttunch? Isn't he a bit old to work in a movie theater? Get a real job, review boy.
HE PROBABLY REFUSED ORAL ON THE BOSS
One thing you all seem to forget: Tennessee is a right to work state which means that the Theater doesn't need a reason for firing someone.
Something about 'Right to Work' statutes that most people do not know:
Any contract that has to be signed as a condition for employment, regardless of the type of contract (non disclosure, non compete, etc) are completely null and void, unless the contract specifically states some form of payment not-relating to the job wages.
In other words, nothing signed as part of a 'work agreement' is legally binding in a Right to Work state. I should know, I won a case on these grounds in the state of Texas when an employer tried to sue me for non-disclosure (even though I hadn't disclosed anything secret).
This is so unfortunate, probably unconstitutional, and does not reflect well on the movie studio.
Your Talkback on this Story