News in Film
 
 
 

Perez Hilton Ironically Declares ‘Avatar’ a Failure

Published by Jeff Leins on: December 21st, 2009

Perez HiltonJames Cameron’s Avatar opened this weekend and narrowly missed setting the record for largest December debut of all time.  The groundbreaking CGI epic made $77 million once the actual numbers were posted Monday afternoon, just $185,840 shy of the Will Smith starrer I Am Legend ($585M worldwide total).

Avatar also managed $232 million worldwide, the biggest global opening for a non-sequel in the history of cinema.

Not bad for a failure. Seeking new ways to grab attention, Perez Hilton blogged, “The most expensive movie ever made has FAILED at the box office,” citing an erroneous claim that the movie was made for $500 million.

He neglected to inform his readers of the record 3D and IMAX sales, which explains why some audiences may be waiting for a show that isn’t sold out with this premium technology.  Not even a hint of its strong word of mouth that will easily carry the movie through January.  Not to mention expert opinion, who believe the 20th Century Fox movie is destined to recoup and then some.

Of course, Hilton compares it to The Twilight Saga: New Moon, which put up impressive, record-breaking numbers last month before dropping like a rock the following weekend once the Twi-hards had received an eyeful of shirtlessness.

Hilton’s blog typically copies and pastes stories from others (like the jackals at OhNoTheyDidn’t) before providing punctuation-laden commentary that shaves IQ points from its readers.  This time the gossip queen attempted original content and wound up looking more ridiculous than going out of the house looking like this.

I’ll tell you what’s disappointing.  No scribbling on the Avatar poster in Perez’s box office coverage!  No juvenile drawings of penises or childlike captions that scream “LOSER!”  Maybe the mother of all Internet attention whores is slipping.  I’m sure I’m telling you what you already know at this point, but Perez Hilton is a douche.

Update: For all the OhNoTheyDidnt visitors, here’s proof of the theft:
NewsinFilm article: http://www.newsinfilm.com/2009/12/20/avatar-weathers-winter-storms-for-top-finish/
ONTD article: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/42271204.html

Stolen verbatim, and this is just one example.  Another is the write-up above and this link.  Glad most ONTD agree with the animal comparison.

Update2: Discussion’s over, not that it was getting anywhere. It’s the holidays and I’ve had enough anonymous comments from entitled kids to last me into the new year.

  • stephan77
    Hey! People! Stay focused! This article is about Perez and how dumb he is! Too bad he couldn't turn his awesome predictive powers to prevent himself mistaking Shanghai for Beijing during his visit on Monday. Mentally and geographically challenged... I wonder what else we can add to this list?
  • tj2
    I think if the term 'reposted without permission' were used, it might explain things a little better and be more appropriate. Granted, a quote is a portion of an article, not it's entirety. However, I think its harsh to call it 'theft' if there is no attempt to claim it as their own work or profit from it.

    Oh and Jeff, you're REALLY going to get ONTDers back up if you compare them to Perez Hilton who doesn't just repost without permission, but often neglects to quote source while adding his comments suggesting its his own work when it's not. More importantly, and the major difference: he makes MILLIONS off the ad revenue on his site. Now that IS theft, making money from other people's work. How he hasn't been sued into oblivion is beyond me.

    That's the point I think ONTDers are trying to make. They believe that if they're not making money from your work and don't try to claim it as their own... then in their eyes its not theft.

    Comparing ONTD to Perez is definitely not a fair comparison considering articles are posted for the express purposes of discussion on ONTD rather then profit (and attention and fame whoring when it comes to Perez). I'm sure you can see why having to go to another site to read it, then back to comment would be tedious. This is the main purpose of ONTD, not to be entertainment bloggers or journalists, which is why it's c/p and not written up as a cribbed article with sources.

    Unfortunately this is the reality of the internet and you could say ONTD reposts it under 'fair use'. It's not a professional organization, its a NOT-for-profit community group who share their reading material... the net equivalent of handing round a magazine and having a good discussion.
  • jeffleins
    What you say about Perez makes sense, but if ONTD is just a site intended for discussion then why not quote excerpts? Take a look at Digg or Reddit as examples of how respectable websites do the same thing. I understand ONTD is not claiming it as their own, but reprinting full articles and ripping off headlines is unethical at best. Especially ones re-posted and yet still titled "EXCLUSIVE," which defies the very definition of the word...

    That's my gripe and the reason for the comparison.
  • tj2
    Yes and as I said in my original comment, the reason ONTD copy the whole article is because its tedious to have to go to other sites to read, then back to discuss. Not to mention, some sites don't keep up content, so it's also an archive. Teachers have been photocopying pages out of newspapers or magazines for decades, handing them out to their students and saying 'discuss'. ONTD is a highly popular interest group for enjoyment factor but happens to be net based which makes the propagation and copying of information simple, fast and most importantly, trackable/public.

    Comparing them to an individual who rips off sites purely for profit, attention and fame whoring like Perez, is a bit of a very far stretched and highly unfair comparison. Surely if you're being reasonable you can understand why that upsets them and why they wont accept your arguments?

    And ONTD hate Perez because rather then being a community of like minded individuals gathering info to share and enjoy. He uses sites like ONTD and digg.com to do the leg work for him, then reposts it with a few bitchy or puerile comments of his own, for his own self interests and profit.

    There is a very significant difference in execution and motivation. How then can you use the only similarity of copy/pasting an article, as a basis for a morality argument?

    And while I can highly sympathize with you, and the natural need to keep control of your work, this is a fact of internet life. If you make something publicly available, you have to live with the fact it may be copied and shared without your knowledge or consent. No amount of moaning about it is going to change MILLIONS of people's minds or actions.
  • jeffleins
    "He uses sites like ONTD and digg.com to do the leg work for him, then reposts it with a few bitchy or puerile comments of his own, for his own self interests."

    Sound familiar? Other than profit, the comparison is obvious. You're defending a form of copyright infringement, then saying what all the other ONTD's love to say, "deal with it." I wasn't aware that was the new "fact of internet life" and the original owner's rights are meaningless because it's too tedious to click a link to continue reading.

    No amount of moaning, huh? If I wanted the content down, I'd have it taken down. It's more fun to point out Perez and ONTD for what they really are. Well, it was fun at first, now I'm just bored.
  • sodacake
    Perez Hilton is an abomination. I'm honestly surprised people don't punch him in the face more often.
  • Zed
    Dude, if it's available on the Internet, it's open season. Unless you require membership or charge a fee for full articles, don't cry so much. One person seeing the article means it can be distributed without your permission.

    ONTD does it classy. PH does it trashy.

    And remember, Big Brother is watching you.
  • jeffleins
    oh, it's CLASSY copyright infringement...
  • Guest
    LOL, how exactly is it "stolen" if it is linked BACK to your site?? You know that blue text, yeah that's called a link. And that link, it goes to YOUR site. No one is taking credit for your fantastic piece of work here. It is simply posted, linked to your site, and discussed. Stop being a prick and get over ya self. You're welcome for the traffic too.
  • jeffleins
    What is that the battle cry of you ignorant, entitled trolls? "We linked back to your original work! lol butthurt!" It's simply RE-posted, then linked to us (who wrote it).

    "I stole this car, but don't worry about it. It belongs to Jimmy, so it's ok."
  • Yourlocalskeptic
    Back on topic here because quarreling over internet vanity is completely insignificant;

    Who gives a shit what Paris Hilton thinks?
    But on the other hand, because a movie makes a lot of money at the box office and is labeled as being successful, does that translate it as being a good film? Explain please.
  • PraiseGaga
    PAWS UP JACKALS~!
  • Hey Girl Hey
    I guess I get your point, that ONTD takes content which isn't is and puts it with other random content, and as such your site doesn't get as many hits as it could get. That's true, but do you also hate Google Reader? Cause Google does the same thing that ONTD does...

    And, hasn't our reaction shown you how ONTD can actually help websites by exposing them to a larger audience?I had never heard of this site until this post.

    Just throwing that out there
  • jeffleins
    Finally, someone who gets it.

    The only difference is Google Reader is an RSS aggregation tool, which allows webmasters to control whether they want the full post visible or an excerpt. ONTD didn't sample those examples above, nor the brilliant io9.com Avatar analysis they reprinted a few days ago.

    There's no denying ONTD's rabid readership though. I'm not surprised they defended the site they regularly read. I'd probably come to the defense of Pajiba or /Film in the same way.
  • So, where do you actually stand on this?

    Do you want to sue the ONTD comm or LiveJournal for hosting it?

    I mean, you keep accusing them of theft, and you've made your case here, but then you wrote that last sentence.

    What would you like to see happen as a result of calling ONTD out?
  • jeffleins
    Nah, I'm certainly not going to sue. That's extreme. After all, it's just a rant about Perez Hilton. If I wanted to get serious about it, I would have taken care of that already.

    As for the last sentence, I'd defend those sites if they were being attacked. Then again, they don't rip off others' hard work.
  • Big Nick 5000
    To tell you the truth, I've never heard of ONTD untill I came to NIF. Now I see that the site not only steals but its full of ass clowns. Nice!
  • not jeff leins
    You should seriously be thankful that ONTD posted your article. How many comments and views does this website typically get? ONTD provides you with a huge traffic bump.

    They also make 0 ad revenue because there are no ads on the site, so they are not 'stealing' from you in any sense.

    Get a grip.
  • jeffleins
    Thanks ONTD for ripping me (and everyone else) off!
  • alyssa1
    Jeff Leins, this is your most popular blog. Your sarcasm cannot hide that, sir! I bet you wish we'd post all your articles.
blog comments powered by Disqus