In response to all the emails I've received asking if this is true -- yes, it is. AMPTP president Nick Counter's son-in-law is indeed a Hollywood writer. He's WGA member Alex Kurtzman, who partners on scripts with Roberto Orci (Transformers, Mission: Impossible III, The Legend Of Zorro, The Island, Star Trek). Kurtzman is married to Counter's daughter who is also a WGA member. (No comments on this...) 

The AMPTP issued a statement tonight and the WGA's is below that. The negotiations broke down today not because of the traditional DVD residual issue, but about residuals for the Internet such as electronic sell-through -- i.e. Internet downloads. The AMPTP keeps saying electronic sell-through is synonymous with DVDs. The WGA says they're different and wants to negotiate a new residual formula. AMPTP refuses. Everyone knows that New Media and the Internet are the overriding issues of this negotiation. And now no more bargaining is skedded because of them. (... Remember, DHD comments are turned on. Opine away!) :

"AMPTP POSITION STATED TO THE WGAW AND WGAE TODAY
BY AMPTP PRESIDENT NICK COUNTER

"We’ve been working hard to come up with a package in response to your last proposal.  But we keep running up against the DVD issue. The companies believe that movement is possible on other issues, but they cannot make any movement when confronted with your continuing efforts to increase the DVD formula, including the formula for electronic sell-through.

The magnitude of that proposal alone is blocking us from making any further progress. We cannot move further as long as that issue remains on the table. In short, the DVD issue is a complete roadblock to any further progress. 

This cannot come as a surprise. Before the negotiations began, Writers Guild of America West President Patric Verrone met with many CEOs. The consistent message from the CEOs was that, for overriding business reasons, the home video formula would not be changed.  Nevertheless, you proposed to increase the DVD formula in these negotiations.</p>

<p>We want to make a deal. We think doing so is in your best interests, in your members’ best interests, in the best interests of our companies and in the best interests of the industry.  But, as I said, no further movement is possible to close the gap between us so long as your DVD proposal remains on the table. In referring to DVDs, we include not only traditional DVDs, but also electronic sell-through -- i.e., permanent downloads. As you know, we believe that electronic sell-through is synonymous with DVD.

There are pending claims with regard to electronic sell-through that will be resolved through the arbitration process. But to make any new agreement with you, residuals for the DVD market, including electronic sell-through, must be paid under the existing home video formula.

We are ready and willing to proceed to reach agreement with you. We call upon you to take the necessary steps now to break this impasse so that bargaining can continue for our mutual benefit and the good of everyone else who works in this industry."

POSTSCRIPT: After Nick Counter presented the above position, the WGA advised us that they were not prepared to continue tonight. When asked about tomorrow, they said no, we have a membership meeting. When they were asked about Friday, they advised they would call us.

2ND UPDATE: The WGA issued this "Latest Word" tonight:

"The WGA Negotiating Committee, on behalf of the Writers of Guild of America, West (WGAW) and the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE), has issued the following statement regarding Contract 2007 negotiations:

Today, just hours before the expiration of our contract, the AMPTP brought negotiations to a halt. The Companies refused to continue to bargain unless we agree that the hated DVD formula be extended to Internet downloads.
 
This morning we presented the AMPTP with a comprehensive package of proposals that included movement on DVDs, new media, and jurisdictional issues. We also took nine proposals off the table. The Companies returned six hours later and said they would not respond to our package until we capitulated to their Internet demand.
 
After three and a half months of bargaining, the AMPTP still has not responded to a single one of our important proposals. Every issue that matters to writers, including Internet reuse, original writing for new media, DVDs, and jurisdiction, has been ignored. This is completely unacceptable.
 
There will be a WGA West membership meeting in Los Angeles Thursday night."

UPDATE: More details about the WGA's "Comprehensive Package Proposal" presented today are here. In the meantime, there's a new blog by a member of the WGA "Communications Committee" at UnitedHollywood.com. It critiques the media coverage of this breaking story as well as imparts info.

Attention Hollywood flacks: here's a nightmare for you... There's an ongoing discussion by journalists over what qualifies as "The Worst Celebrity Profile Ever Written". Slate's Ron Rosenbaum started it off in June by nominating Tom Junod's summer piece on Angelina Jolie. "When it comes to fawning, there is nothing quite like the elaborate, elevated, wannabe-highbrow fawning that 'gentlemen's magazines' (mainly Esquire and GQ) do when they produce a cover story on a hot actress. And in the history of fawning gentlemen's-magazine profiles, there is unlikely to be a more ludicrous example than the profile in the July Esquire of—yes—Angelina Jolie, which spends many thousands of words and invokes grave national tragedies to prove to us that Angelina Jolie is not just a good woman, not just an enlightened humanitarian, not just a suffering victim of celebrity, not just strong and brave, but, we are told, "the best woman in the world."

Then, yesterday, Philadelphia Magazine articles editor Michael Callahan wrote to Jim Romenesko's journalism blog that Junod's piece on Jolie had recently been eclipsed. "Evidently the folks at Men's Vogue felt a gauntlet had been thrown down, and have dutifully responded with what surely eclipses Junod's effort, and not by a little, either: writer Troy Patterson's ludicrous love letter to Denzel Washington in the November issue. Which brings me back to Men's Vogue. Never mind that the supposed fashion spread accompanying this piece is nothing but a blatant ad for Valentino (one assumes Washington refused to wear anything else, so naturally the magazine kowtowed). That would have been bad enough. But it's the words, not the pictures, that inflict the most pain, 3,500 words of fellatio."

That prompted Eric Deggans, the TV/media critic for the St. Petersburg Times to nominate Esquire's last cover story on Brad Pitt "which mostly featured Pitt pontificating about being a great parent and making a difference in the world. You know you're in trouble when the writer takes many long paragraphs to describe how the star enters the room -- that means, there's not much else coming."

Yo, readers, any of you know of other contenders? 

Do not believe a ridiculous report that there will be litigation over Ryan Gosling dropping out of The Lovely Bones right before principal photography was to begin on the Peter Jackson movie based on the Alice Sebold novel. Really, the b.s. on the blogosphere is amazing. Here's what happened, according to a good source: "Ryan's 26. The character of Jack is 36. Ryan and Peter both believed that if he put on a little weight, and perhaps added a beard, that it would age him up. In the end, Ryan felt he couldn't make the age leap in a way he felt good about." Another source confirms there won't be any lawsuit, but tells me about friction which was tantamount to a "battle of wills": Jackson "had a very hard time" with Gosling's putting out a million ideas of what he wanted to do without taking into account Jackson's own directorial vision. "Jackson didn't want to work with him after spending time with him in Pittsburgh," the insider says, "And the thought was that Ryan went overboard with the weight gain" and showed up way too heavy. So Mark Wahlberg took Gosling's place in the DreamWorks production.

Maybe screenwriter/director Craig Mazin (Scary Movie 3 & 4) of the WGA-bashing website ArtfulWriter.com has seen one too many horror pics. He's claiming today that the guild members' strike authorization votes are not private, and the way the voting is taking place is not kosher, either. These are quite explosive allegations, and I don't believe he substantiates them (see why I say that below). I'd say Marin is doing himself a lot of harm with his jejune blog. What made Marin so paranoid began with an email from his WGA “strike captain” yesterday:

"And she told me that the Guild had informed her that I had not yet voted, and she urged me to vote. What…the…hell???? For as long as I’ve been a member of this union (12 years and counting now), every single vote we’ve ever taken has been a secret ballot. No one knows who votes or who doesn’t vote, and no one shares that information with other members. Furthermore, there was absolutely no indication in the voting materials that this ballot would be handled in any different way than any ballots before it... If the staff is tallying who voted, then what’s stopping them from seeing who voted how? Will they make a list of the “no” voters? And if they do, any guesses as to how long that list gets leaked? Are you now, or have you ever been against the strike?

"What they’re doing isn’t illegal. It’s just unethical and immoral and wrong, and I’m disgusted with leadership for daring to be so bold, and for abandoning such an obvious and necessary prerequisite for a fair and decent democratic referendum. I call upon the Board of Directors of the Writers Guild of America, west to repudiate this policy, and to state clearly that all votes of the general membership be adminstered solely by an independent third party, that all voting information be held in the strictest of confidence, and that no members should be privy to other members’ voting records in any way. If they fail to enact this policy, then I’ll go over their heads. I’ll go to the membership with a petition to amend the Constitution so that I know this never happens again."

"ADDENDUM: The difference between all those other votes and the current one is simply this: those envelopes were sent to an independent election supervision entity, where they were compared to membership rolls and tallied by independent parties who did not work for the Guild, nor were members of the Guild, nor have ever been members of the Guild. The counting of ballots and verification of voter eligibility is an essential task that must be performed by disinterested third parties. Not by the Guild itself. This is obvious and fundamental. It’s so obvious and fundamental, it’s the way the union has conducted every single election I’ve been a part of …until now."

Some of Marin's commentators explain why what happened is not nefarious. I think Marin is wrong to assume that just because someone knows he or anyone else hasn't voted means the WGA can then know how he or anyone else did vote. While I do agree the more paranoid WGA members need to be reassured that not only is the ballotting secret but that it was conducted with integrity, Marin is getting told and told that there are already plenty of measures in place already to guarantee that.

So MySpace founders Chris DeWolfe and Tom Anderson have agreed to a new contract with News Corp after waging a very aggressive (some would term it rather fanciful) compensation proposal to owner News Corp. I reported back in June they were asking Peter Chernin and Rupert Murdoch for a 2-year deal worth $50 million total. That comes out to $25 million each, or $12.5 million a year. Plus, the pair want a development fund of $15 million to invest in internet companies. Even though MySpace is probably the most integral part of News Corp's overall corporate strategy, no one had obviously told DeWolfe or Anderson that News Corp is also one of the cheapest companies on earth when it comes to executive compensation. They know it now. I'm not yet privy to the particulars of the new contract, but I was told by News Corp insiders back then that the chances of DeWolfe and Anderson getting what they wanted pay-wise was "slim to none" and "highly unlikely". I understood News Corp countered with an offer of $15 million each spread over 2 years --- still more than every suit at News Corp except Ailes. Rupe also gave the duo equity in MySpace China, so they already got a deal unlike anyone else's. See my previous, MySpace Pair Looking To Loot News Corp. 

Not just at the Writers Guild of America but all over Hollywood today a deep sigh of relief resounded when the news broke that the movie studios and TV networks withdrew the proposal to let them recoup certain costs before making residual payments. This huge concession occurred one day after the trades were filled with pessimism because the WGA's new hardline strike rules had resulted in a declaration of war from the Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers president Nick Counter.

This is exactly why I have been delaying any posting of strike news until today. Because there's been so much huffing, and puffing, and most of all bluffing going on that it's been near impossible to get a real sense of where things stood. You can't believe the posturing from the WGA side, just as you can't believe anything said by Counter. The truth lies in the executive suites and palatial homes of the top Hollywood moguls, who have been letting their labor lackeys keep track of the negotiations to date and don't even have a meeting planned amongst themselves for another week. Let's not mince words: They're the ones who are really going to decide if this strike gets averted, and we all know it. And today's news means that's increasingly likely.

Jeez, I'm sick to death of hearing the Hollywood bigwigs repeat that old saw about residuals supposedly said by Lew Wasserman to the effect that "My plumber doesn't charge me every time I flush the toilet".  Yeah, and years ago a lot more screenwriters in the motion picture business were regularly employed than, say, the Top 25 working today. Go back and read my Screenwriters In The Shit column in LA Weekly from a year ago to know just how horrible things are out there for formerly successful scribblers. They're selling the family home, taking kids out of private school, moving out of Los Angeles because their film careers are over. For these so-called schmucks with Underwoods, residuals are keeping the mortgage paid and food on the table. The same is true, of course, for writers in television. Which is why any change in the formula for sharing profit from homevideos and television reruns and pay television between the writers and producers became a huge sticking point in the contract talks with that October 31st deadline fast approaching and a strike authorization pending. Now, the AMPTP expects the guild to dump its demand for doubling DVD residuals in exchange for at most a mild cost-of-living increase adjusted for inflation. Finally, there's progress.

Remaining issues that need to be ironed out for the 12,000-member Writers Guild include New Media compensation. Look, that's a fairly simple one to solve. Since nobody yet has a handle on how much money the Internet, mobile phones and the next tech and toys will yield, create a blue-ribbon panel to study the matter. Let it report back in two years' time when all the guessing finally firms into realistic estimates. Then fight it out.

Finally, the studios and networks need to do something bold to get the guilds off their backs and stem a revolutionary revamp of residuals and New Media payments. Producers need to help the WGA's and SAG's eroding health care plans by bumping up contributions or finding some financing mechanism to shore up benefits.  

Don't get me wrong. The moguls are now ready for a strike, even though the WGA's quick-on-the-draw timing to cripple TV pilot season and next year's movies did catch the studios and networks by surprise. The majors are quietly announcing no more overtime as well as hiring freezes, which are expanded to include no more temps, contractors, or consultants (excluding those approved in conjunction with capital projects). And producers have started making quiet calls to convince certain writers to finish scripts or start new ones as "consultants". Others in Hollywood are tightening their belts as well. Agencies are cutting expenses even deeper and warning secretaries and assistants there could be layoffs or a total shutdown. Some tenpercenteries are even bandying about that dreaded term "force majeure" to avoid having to pay agents if a long strike drags on and on. And all the ancillary businesses that depend on Hollywood will be hurt; they'll disappear altogether or get bought out at bargain prices.

Finally, I don't care if the moguls don't want Warner Bros' Barry Meyer or News Corp's Peter Chernin, both of whom have taken a clear leadership role behind the scenes, to drag them out of the muck and mire. I don't care if the producers don't want to take up Jeffrey Katzenberg's offer to play the hero. (Heck, he's got to find something challenging to occupy his time since DreamWorks Animation only makes at most two films a year.) I don't even care if the moguls call in that Republican louse Arnold Schwarzenegger to mediate with the guilds. (After all, Hollywood Democrats contributed to his re-election campaign. It's time to call in a favor.) All I care is that no strike happens. Because I'll fucking lose my mind if I have to post a labor story daily starting October 31st. That I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

Normally, I wouldn't bother to delve into this. But I feel it's important for my readers to know that Warner president of production Jeff Robinov had many opportunities to deny my Friday posting that he'd articulated a new decree to three different producers that "We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead", that a male has to be the lead of every pic made, and that he doesn't even want to see a script with a woman in the primary position. I stand by my story, Warner's Robinov Bitchslaps Film Women. Now here's what happened behind the scenes.

I heard nothing from anyone at Warner Bros on Friday, Saturday or Sunday despite my emails because the studio, I later heard, decided on a strategy of no comment regarding my posting. Early Monday AM, I was awakened by a phoner from a studio head telling me he'd received a call from Robinov asking for advice on "how to have a better relationship with Nikki Finke". (The studio head, who works for a rival to Warner Bros, advised: "Don't lie to her.") The mogul said Robinov wanted a go-between to find out whether I would be willing to talk to him off the record. I was puzzled by this, since Hollywood people just pick up the phone and talk to me directly, but I said of course. I phoned Robinov's office. Since our conversation was off the record, I cannot divulge what Robinov said to me except to characterize our entire exchange as extremely cordial. I did ask over and over whether he wanted to comment publicly on my posting.

Around noon, I received an email from Robinov. I treat emails sent to me as private, so I won't divulge its contents except to characterize it as charming.

During Monday, I received calls from radio and TV wanting to interview me on the air about my Robinov posting. I was feeling ill, so I declined. This is after my posting had been carried all weekend by many high-profile websites and blogs.

Around 5 pm Monday, I received a phone call from Robinov. He said he wanted me to post this on the record statement from him: "I never said it. I don't believe that you shouldn't put women as the leads in movies. It's not a philosophy I hold." I asked him if he'd received any phone calls during the day about the posting. He said, "None." I said, "Really, not from anyone? Because I've been receiving phone calls." He repeated that no one had called him on it. I also asked if he was giving this denial to any other media outlet. He said no and told me, "I made a promise to you that since you had posted the story, I would only go to you to comment on it publicly."  

Immediately after his call, I phoned a Warner Bros PR rep to check with Robinov one last time to make sure he wanted to go public. The flack asked me to wait to post, then reached Robinov and phoned me back before 7 pm saying, "Look, he's thought about it, and he doesn't want to issue any statement. So let's just forget about it."

On Tuesday, I was ill and unable to take any phone calls or read emails. No one official from Warner Bros phoned or emailed, but several insiders did tell me that the studio had been flooded with calls regarding Robinov and women. At 7:30 pm that day, a brief article posted online at Variety.com, saying, "Contrary to recent reports in the blogosphere, Warner Bros is still committed to women. Despite the failure of three femme-centered actioners produced by Joel Silver -- Jodie Foster starrer The Brave One; The Reaping, with Hilary Swank; and the remake The Invasion, starring Nicole Kidman, Warner production prexy Jeff Robinov insists he is moving forward with several movies with women in the lead. Indeed, he is offended by rumors of his cinematic misogyny."

Sources inside Warner's tell me that, 1) Robinov doesn't believe there's an actress who can carry a movie worldwide since Julia Roberts, 2) Robinov has now gone so far as admitting to his studio colleagues that the decree I reported was made when he was "in the room", 2) Robinov is acknowledging that the studio is reassessing the strategy of making action pictures starring women, 3) Robinov was inundated with calls on Monday and Tuesday from media and Hollywood types asking him about my posting, 4) Robinov has three pics currently in production and six in pre-production and not one stars a women as the main lead of the film, 5) he's nixed Wonder Woman as a stand-alone film, downgrading her to just one of four superhero characters in the proposed Justice League pic, and, 6) Robinov will only make Wonder Woman as a spin-off of Justice League, about four superheroes including Wonder Woman. But his proviso is that JL (no doubt its proper name Justice League Of America would be too jingoistic for the foreign market) would have to do really, really boffo to justify having a female star-driven pic. Again, I stand by my story.

"'I've always thought that if I wrote a novel about Hollywood,' says Nikki Finke, 'it would start, 'That bitch!' the studio mogul cried, but the secretary didn't know which woman journalist he was talking about.'" So begins my interview with the latest issue of Elle magazine timed to its annual "Women In Hollywood" celebration. (The editors are holding a dinner and awards October 15th at the Four Seasons Beverly Hills.) Read my entire Q-&-A here about power, putzes ("There are a lot of Jewish mothers whom I blame for these people's behavior"), why I watch The Discovery Channel's Shark Week to get agent behavioral pointers, and whether women will ever get ahead in the movie biz. Some snippets:

ELLE: You are a powerful woman in Hollywood, Nikki. A lot of moguls there are scared of you.
Nikki Finke: Look, I'm not powerful, and no one is scared of me. But here's why I think women make the best reporters in Hollywood. It's such a testosterone-fest out here, such the preserve of alpha males, that when you have a male reporter interviewing a male mogul, it's basically swinging dicks aimed at each other.
---
ELLE: Moron. I've seen you call them morons.
NF: Well, that's a given. All moguls are morons. I can't believe what they do on an almost daily basis. I approach this town from the point of view of "You're all making terrible mistakes." The content is terrible. The process is tainted. It's an accident, almost, when a movie is good and comes in under budget. Everyone in Hollywood is part of a very broken system. Feed it with praise and you'll never get the players to step back and say, "What the hell are we doing even playing this rotten game?"
---
ELLE: When you write something incendiary, it does free up other reporters to follow you.
NF: People will perpetuate the myths until someone like me pushes the envelope by telling the truth. Then other reporters can go to their editors and say, "Look what she's reporting," and they can do a tougher piece. It's always hard to be the first, and I've suffered a terrible price for that.

The Band's Visit has just swept Israel's Ophir Awards (the equivalent to that country's Oscars) so this means it should be Israel's submission for the Academy Award's Best Foreign Language Film. But even with the Kodak Theater ceremony still 5 months away, there's already controversy in this category. Rivals are claiming that the political movie, about an Egyptian police band that mistakenly ends up stranded overnight in a small Israeli town, has more than 50% English dialogue and therefore must be ruled ineligible for the nomination. Israeli film critic Yair Raveh has been following the scandal on his blog (alas, in Hebrew) and reports that The Band's Visit producers, backed by Sony Pictures Classics (who bought the Cannes award winning film's foreign rights) insist the English dialogue is less than 50%. The Israeli motion picture academy says it's the producers' call, not theirs. That has infuriated rivals who are calling on the local academy to check into the matter before the film is officially submitted. Sony Classics may also enter the pic's Israeli writer and director Eran Kolirin in the Best Original Screenplay category. The Band's Visit, of course, just had its North American premiere at Telluride and Toronto. "As someone who's been following Israeli cinema for the past 15 years," Raveh emails me, "I've yet to see a local film getting such glowing international reviews." If it does become one of Oscar's Foreign Language nominees this year, it will be the first Israeli film to do so since 1984's Beyond the Walls. To date, six Israeli films have been Oscar nominees, but an Israeli movie has yet to win. Interestingly, The Band's Visit will participate in the Middle East International Film Festival held in October in Abu Dhabi.

One of my fave film critics personally and professionally today launched a new blog named The Projectionist as "a place for second thoughts, third thoughts, musings both important and self-indulgent, and — I hope — a fluid exchange with readers". New York mag's David Edelstein plans to post several times each week, noting, “a blog is organic, and you never know if it will turn you into The Hulk or the Incredible Shrinking Man.” Edelstein joined New York as film critic in January 2006, coming from Slate. He is also film critic for NPR's Fresh Air and an occasional commentator on film for CBS Sunday Morning.

... is Andy Cohen, Bravo's senior v-p of production and programming. He has to be the most annoying host to be foisted upon TV viewers in a long, long time. Of course, there's the obvious conflict of interest issue. (Did he audition himself? Yes, but claims in interviews that he did so with "support and encouragement from my bosses. I don't have the power to say, 'OK, well, now I want a show at eight o'clock every night, so that's what I'm gonna do'.") But it's also never a good idea to put a showbiz suit in front of the camera anyway, unless that executive has the charm and charisma of a Brandon Tartikoff (and even he had the good sense to know that a little of himself went a long way). Cohen is uber-awful. He's Mr. Tries Too Hard because he must know he lacks the chops. Not only can't he referee a group, he's worse when attempting to interview: his questions are inchoate, he never asks follow-ups, and he's uncomfortable to watch. I'm certainly not the first person to think this, and I won't be the last. Enough already. Cohen's bosses needed to keep him confined to the Internet where he can't do any harm and leave on-air hosting to the pros.

As usual, Vanity Fair's James Wolcott elegantly sums up the issue at hand regarding that creepy blogger email I reported: read his commentary here.

Just when I think I've seen it all... comes this email from Hollywood-Elsewhere.com blogger Jeff Wells to 3:10 To Yuma director James Mangold. I've authenticated it, and I've shortened it (because so much of it is incomprehensible filmspeak). But I am truly sickened that Wells spends the 2nd paragraph begging Mangold to, well, see for yourself. I understand that the director was appalled by the email. As all of Hollywood should be:

From: Jeffrey Wells
August 9, 2007 9:54:59 AM PDT
To: James Mangold
Subject: 3:10 to Yuma notes

Jim,
I'm just gonna be upfront with you, pardner, and tell ya right straight I can't get on the 3:10 to Yuma train and ride shotgun this time. Not like I did with Walk the Line, I mean. Not 100% anyway. It's clearly above-average and sometimes way above average but that ending....hoowee. Crowe [edited out because of spoilers]. Christian Bale is superb -- one of his career best -- and Crowe is high-end exceptional as always, and I greatly respect Bale's angry older son. A very good actor. DiCaprio-strength emoting. What's his name again? Don't bother -- I'll figure it out.

I am on my knees, Mr. Mangold, saying thank you, thank you and thank you again for persuading Vinessa Shaw to do her first flat-out, boob-baring nude scene. I was in heaven as Crowe drew her on his notepad. Please tell me there's somebody on the Yuma team who can slip me some stills of the shooting that day... please. I'm serious. I know you think like I do in this respect, so please ... as one good hombre to another ... you don't have to be the guy who passes along the stills. Just tell the still photographer or the editor or whomever caught her as she posed. I'm not a sleazebag either -- I don't pass along stills to the Mr. Skin crowd or my friends. This would be just for my, myself & I.  At the very least it would be great to grab some frame captures from the film itself. Or some unused footage of Shaw and Crowe doing whatever. Out-takes, perhaps.

I was hoping this would be akin to Open Range, a movie that really and truly seemed to have been made in the 1890s [contd....]

Since I'm mixed on your film it would be best for you and yours if I waited to say anything until just before it opens. I don't want to hurt anyone or anything. I respect you and what you've done, but it just didn't ring my bell like Walk the Line did... sorry.  Although I really and truly do like a lot of things about it.  Many things, really.  That whole middle section is almost pure pleasure.
Jeffrey Wells

And here is Jeff Wells' response after I asked for his explanation:

Nikki,
Yeah, Nikki, I have a comment -- it was seriously scummy of you to have run an off-the-cuff, one-guy-to-another letter about wanting to get a jump on photos of a hot actress that may or may not turn up on Mr. Skin a few weeks or months down the road. I'm going to pass along a major shocker to you, but you'd better sit down first. Ready? Guys like naked women -- actresses, amateurs, Helmut Newton models, French politicians..anywhere and under almost any circumstance. They dream about naked women, compare notes about naked women, ogle pictures of naked women. I think it's icky to loudly proclaim such interests, why is why I confine my enthusiasms along these lines to guys I know and (ahem) trust.

Vinessa Shaw, as it happens, has long inspired unmentionable thoughts on my part -- unmentionable, I should say, except when it comes to you and your column. Anyway, I was sitting at my desk one afternoon and thinking about that brief nude-sketching scene between she and Russell Crowe in 3:10 To Yuma was the bees knees, so I [edited for legal reason] asked him if there were any grabbable stills or hot outtakes (pant, pant). I really don't see what the big effin' deal is, except for your having posted a private e-mail that had nothing to do with anything except a surge of hormonal intemperance on my part that -- silly me -- I trusted would stay in Mangold's e-mail box.

One other point -- you're a good aggressive reporter so you should always ask yourself "why?" when you've been sent something like this. As in who benefits and who's angry at me about what thing I've recently written? You don't have to answer this question, but you way want to kick it around in your spare time. 

Let me say in conclusion that I will continue to celebrate the notion of naked women, enjoy pictures of naked women, go to movies with female nude scenes and otherwise express all those appalling libidinal dream-notions that absolutely required publishing this brilliant, earth-shaking expose on Deadline Hollywood Daily. Although I probably won't be sharing them with James Mangold any time soon.
Jeffrey Wells

This is hilarious. A few hours after director Michael Bay declared "No Blu-Ray, No 'Transformers' 2!" (and nearly gave poor Paramount boss Brad Grey a panic attack), he has backtracked. By the way, to answer all your questions about my personal views, I honestly don't care which format takes over; I just want ONE format to win already. And the funniest email I've received these past few days has to be this: "The most upsetting part of your story is the possibility that the future of home entertainment might hinge in any way on what Michael Bay says or does. Horrifying, even." As for my own opinion, now I understand why his 'The Island' sucked so bad. Anyway, here's what the helmer just posted on his "Shoot For The Edit" website. Interesting how quickly and easily he became a new convert to HD DVD:

"Last night at dinner I was having dinner with three Blu-ray owners. They were pissed about no Transformers Blu-ray, and I drank the Kool-Aid hook, line and sinker. So at 1:30 in the morning I posted -- nothing good ever comes out of early AM posts, mind you -- I over reacted. I heard where Paramount is coming from and the future of HD and players that will be close to the $200 mark which is the magic number. I like what I heard.

As a director, I'm all about people seeing films in the best quality possible, and I saw and heard firsthand people upset about a corporate decision.

So today I saw 300 on HD, it rocks!

So I think I might be back on to do Transformers 2!"

And here's what Bay posted earlier today in an online outburst thought to be the first time a director has openly criticized a studio for its choice of high-def formats:

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For them to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks! They were progressive by having two formats. No Transformers 2 for me!"

1. Michael Bay Says To Paramount: No Blu-Ray, No 'Transformers' Sequel!
2. Desperation Move & Cash Grab? Or Bloodier Blu-ray/HD-DVD Format War?
3. 'Transformers' Michael Bay Lays On Blame