Now that Friedman has been fired, the studio may drop the issue, but it also may still choose to pursue legal action. (The studio has already announced that, thanks to digital watermarking built into the leaked DVD, it's on the trail of the leaker and plans to prosecute to the full extent of the law.) The studio's negative response might seem odd at first; critics see movies before their release all the time. And in fact, they do so with the cooperation and encouragement of the studios, who spend enormous amounts of money on publicity departments whose sole purpose is to extract positive reviews from critics, columnists, and bloggers. Friedman wrote a glowing assessment. Particularly given that word of mouth on the film has been mostly negative, shouldn't Fox be pleased?
Maybe, but even if the studio was happy with the review, its hands are tied. After all, what Friedman did was a crime (never mind that it was a crime also committed by 75,000 others). And more importantly, despite record revenues at the box office in 2007 and 2008, the movie industry is terrified of following the downhill path blazed by the music industry as peer-to-peer downloading became increasingly easy and widespread. That's why the movie industry has spent the past few years waging an aggressive legal and PR battle against piracy. Their trade group's official position on the matter is that downloading is no different from theft.
Given that position, they simply can't sanction any review of a pirate leak, no matter how laudatory--particularly after Friedman's piece so blithely and explicitly explained how he got the film. The movie industry needs a show of force in order to back up their statements about the seriousness of piracy. Besides, letting Friedman slide would open the door to other critics reviewing downloaded copies, reviews that might not be nearly so kind. Worse, giving an okay to Friedman's review because he's a critic might seem to offer tacit approval to nearly anyone who downloaded a copy, provided only that the downloader reviewed the film on his or her blog--or perhaps even just Twittered a line about it. Anyone who posted a review online could make a case that he or she is a critic, and therefore entitled to watch.
If Friedman had declined to state his method for procuring the movie, the studio might have been able to claim that, since the leaked version was already out, they decided to feed him a copy of it. Indeed, this would've been almost plausible given that Friedman is known to have a particularly cozy relationship with the studios. As The New York Observer notes, "In the book Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the Rise Independent Film, Peter Biskind quoted former Miramax SVP and co-head of publicity Dennis Higgins as saying "There's no one in the pocket like Roger. It's almost, 'Whaddya want him to write?'"
But with Friedman going ga-ga for the illegal download technology that the studios have declared their sworn enemy, there was no other way to spin it. And so, as if in some Coen-brothers produced screwball tragedy, everybody came out worse simply by doing their jobs: Friedman was let go, and Fox found itself condemning one of the few positive reviews of one of their biggest releases of the year.