Nikki Finke Gets In Blog Scuffle Over 'Hostel II'
Filed under: Horror, Celebrities and Controversy, Politics, Remakes and Sequels
Before I present you with the situation, here's a question to think about: Is it okay for someone to label Hostel: Part II "disgusting" prior to seeing the film? Think about that; we'll get back to it. The always-opinionated Nikki Finke recently wrote a story for her Deadline Hollywood site which talked about the various bootleg copies of Hostel: Part II that are showing up on streets and online. Now, in reporting on this story, Finke said the following: "I say, fine: Lionsgate deserves to feel the effects of piracy (not to mention the wrath of mankind) for distributing such a disgusting film." It's her belief that no business should profit off the "uber-violence" apparently featured in the Hostel sequel.
Okay, everyone has the right to their opinion -- except, when you dish it, you need to be able to handle whatever backfire heads your way. Case in point: Brendon from Film ick wasn't happy about how Finke called Hostel: Part II "disgusting" when she hadn't even seen the film yet. During an odd back-and-forth between Brendon and Finke (in which all of Finke's emails were subsequently removed and summarized at her request), it appears Brendon's biggest problem is that Finke "a) declared a film 'disgusting' and insinuated it is without merit, without even seeing it first, and b) attempted to prejudice other people similarly." Finke, on the other hand, felt she had every right to "be offended by 'torture porn'" and shouldn't be persecuted for urging people not to watch the film. Following that exchange, it appears emails were blocked, filtered into spam folders and the call went out for readers to send Finke an email telling her why she's wrong.
In defense of Finke, calling Hostel: Part II "disgusting" (which, in all reality, it probably is -- and even director Eli Roth wouldn't disagree with you there) is no different than assuming the latest Lindsay Lohan film sucks because she's in it. I'm not saying it's right to assume things, but those of us in the movie blog business do it all the time. It's our job to assume; we get paid to offer an opinion. And so it goes. Should Finke have re-worded it to read, "Hostel: Part II is probably disgusting," just as Brendon said Prince of Persia "sounds like quite a dreadfully dull film?" Probably. Then again, Finke urging people not to see it will probably help the film more than it hurts -- "Finke said not to go. I'm there!" What do you think?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-04-2007 @ 3:55PM
pete said...
1st. finke you aint the boss of me.
2nd. she is probably right. the booteg is out on mininova but i aint watching it. not me cup of tea.
Reply
6-04-2007 @ 4:39PM
malren said...
Finke can kiss my ass. I'll decide what I watch. If the market wants the film, it'll do well. If people don't like it, it'll bomb. Meanwhile no one cares one whit what some airbubble who fancies herself a professional critic has to say.
I might see it twice just to spite her. Nothing worse than a self-inflated critic, except maybe a piss-poor blogger who thinks they're a critic.
Reply
6-04-2007 @ 6:34PM
Peter said...
I think Hostel 2 is going to be a turd, but it has nothing to do with it being 'disgusting'; rather everything to do with the preconceptions Eli Roth has regarding what makes for interesting characters and situations.
Face it, Hostel has a great plot. Not remarkable by any means, but ripe with potential. Roth is, however, cripplingly linear when it comes to expanding that. He fails to understand how to make the material soar.
To boot I don't even think it will be truly disgusting. Hostel was bland. I don't even fully understand why the torture porn label took off. It isn't porn. Porn is hardcore, what Roth showed off - or, rather, did not show - was strictly soft.
Reply
6-04-2007 @ 8:42PM
Hurmoth said...
Finke's an idiot. OK, sure she's entitled to her own opinion, but come on, I am not a fan of slap-stick comedy but I don't think studios who distribute those films should stop. As she's entitled to her opinion about Lionsgate and Hostel: Part II, I'm entitled to think that she's an idiot.
Reply
6-04-2007 @ 8:23PM
Damian said...
Perhaps a more important question than whether or not one can call a film "disgusting" before seeing it is whether or not a person can say ANYTHING about a film prior to seeing it. Is watching trailers, seeing clips from the movie and reading a number of reviews that describe what happens in the film sufficient to decide whether or not the movie is "disgusting" or "dark" or "pleasant" or whatever? Furthermore, how much of a film does one have to see before one can legitimately form an opinion about it? 100%? 50%? Can I turn off/walk out of a film 20 minutes into it and still be able to tell other people about it? Or do I actually have to watch a film more than once to be able to properly appreciate or evaluate it?
What this really boils down to is what degree of knowledge do we demand from ourselves and from others on any given subject? How much information does one need before one can form a definite conclusion about anything? Is personal experience the ONLY way by which a person can can legitimately praise or criticize something? Is 20/20 vision ONLY possible in hindsight? Do I have to personally take cocaine to know it's not good for me and to advise others, with any kind of authority, not to do it? Maybe. Maybe not. These are important questions to ask.
Reply
6-05-2007 @ 4:48AM
Ian said...
My biggest problem here is Finke's assertion that piracy is okay if the material being pirated is somehow unworthy. She's essentially saying that if the particular entertainment you're producing doesn't measure up to her subjective moral standards, then you 'deserve' to have it stolen.
Talk about your slippery slopes.
Reply