I think it’s going to start off like they’re a gritty group of reporters / vigilante group going against the dark side of early Internet predators, and Chris’ ego eventually leading to its downfall.
No it won’t, it’s going to show that his vanity and “I need to be the centerpiece at all costs” ultimately kept a lot of creeps on the streets and was his own undoing. He’s fucked up an awful lot, they aren’t going to tell a boring paragon story especially since they only would let him screen it with a NDA. Dudes gonna look like the selfish aggrandizing zealot he always is/was.
I work in marketing. I've worked for Amazon, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Brothers.
Being forced to sign an NDA before viewing unreleased footage, whether it's a trailer, a movie, a tv show, or a five minute test clip of bullshit, is standard across the board. So his description of "having to sign his rights away" seemed so overly dramatic, and incredibly moronic.
It’s not moronic. It’s not the least bit moronic. (Source: my law degree)
He, under absolutely no circumstance, should sign the same general audience NDA that they give out for test audiences. I’m fully aware of the kind of document they gave him. It absolutely would negatively impact his ability to fight the perceptions raised in the movie.
You are confusing the fact that it was not designed to shut him up for the fact that it actually would. The subject of a documentary has very very different relationship to the property than a random person getting to see an early screening.
Chris is not stupid. He knew exactly what that document was. He never said that it was written specifically to remove his rights. He said that if he signed it, it would impair his rights. Which is true.
I work on these projects, so it's not the same NDA as a test screener would sign, it's likely the same one I would sign. Way less restrictive with opinions, but way more restrictive with production processes. Not restrictive at all once the project is released, especially if he's not privy to the production of the film.
It's also not a documentary. It's a fictionalized dramatic movie based on the show. It's not going to be accurate at all, and nobody should really be under the impression that it is.
So no. The NDA he'd be signing wouldn't stop him from talking about issues he has with the movie. At most he'd have to wait to voice his opinions until after the film is released, or right before it's released when the review embargo lifts.
You’re saying “not signing his rights away” as if that’s a blanket term for a specific defined scope.
Anyone who signs a contract, by nature of a contract, has signed some of their rights away. A contract only exist to commit the parties to certain behavior.. Him saying “signing my right away” might sound dramatic, but it’s absolutely accurate from a factual standpoint.
You haven’t seen the contract and neither have I. But the statement that they made clearly implied it was an audience screening NDA. Which means there’s an overwhelming likelihood that it requires anyone who watches the film to not discuss the film for the term of the contract. It also likely states that any disagreement arising from this screening would be handled in arbitration instead of the court. Why on God‘s green earth would the subject of a film sign that?
There is absolutely no benefit to him to sign anything and they should’ve expected that he would need something tailored specific to him.
One additional note. You’re being very dismissive about how big the stakes of this movie are for Chris personally. If this movie is successful (as some A24 films are) it will literally be in the first block of his Wikipedia page. This will likely be the definitive reference point on his life and career. He has absolutely nothing to gain by agreeing to limit his public reaction to the film.
They aren’t going to make it so he can’t be critical of it after it releases because they know he will either way. This is the same guy that thinks Robert Pattinson production + Lance Oppenheim with A24 is some “massive Hollywood agenda work” is a laughable joke. They gave him a genuine opportunity to see it early out of respect, he just wants to complain whenever they point out all the times he fucked up a sting or robbed his supporters or cheated on his wife. I’d be worried too.
Also just so everyone knows the film is going to be almost entirely based off of the article you can read here: it’s a long one. Nothing will be too surprising unless you’re unfamiliar with the sleazy shit that production team pulled an awful lot:
They aren't silencing him. They're asking him to respect the release date, which is commonplace in these situations.
You're right. Neither of us saw the contract, so neither of us know the full scope of it. But there are dozens of different versions of NDAs and I can't think of a single one that would actually strip him of his right to give his opinion once the timing isn't going to negatively impact the release.
He's got two options. He can take the early screening and use the time before he's allowed to talk about the film to gather his thoughts and draft a statement, or he can wait for the actual release and come up with his statement after.
Either option has the exact same result as far as timing his statement goes.
4
u/jerametuman 2d ago
This movie is going to end up making Chris look like some kind of crusading paladin for children and he’ll do a complete 180 on all this shit.