First Look: G.I. Joe's Scarlett Revealed!

April 16, 2008
Source: JoBlo

First Look: G.I. Joe's Scarlett Revealed!

First it was Snake Eyes, now it's Scarlett. The first photo of an armor plated Scarlett, played by Rachel Nichols, has been revealed courtesy of JoBlo. Paramount is slowly releasing finished photos of each and every character from the upcoming G.I. Joe movie to begin building buzz. My initial reaction - damn she looks good. But this is the first time I've asked myself whether this movie could be bad and whether these are just glossy photos that have been made to look good? Either way you need to check this out.

Click the real photo for a full-size version.

Original ScarlettG.I. Joe's Scarlett

Scarlett is one of the primary characters in the G.I. Joe series. Although she is as adept with standard weapons as any of her comrades, her weapon of choice is the crossbow which can fire various bolts with specialized functions. Her rank is Master Sergeant and she serves from time to time as team leader. Her primary specialty is counter intelligence and she is additionally skilled in martial arts and acrobatics.

G.I. Joe is directed by Stephen Sommers (Deep Rising, The Mummy, Van Helsing) and written by both Stuart Beattie and Skip Woods. The movie arrives in theaters on August 7th, 2009.

Find more posts: First Look, Hype



I love Rachel Nichols. That is all.

Gordon on Apr 16, 2008


This is a JOBLO.COM exclusive!! Thanks for RIPPING IT OFF and posting the entire picture on your site like it was yours. Learn how the Internet and its rules work before ripping off old school movie sites who WORK HARD to get those exclusives, dude...

JoBlo on Apr 16, 2008


"The first photo of an armor plated Scarlett, played by Rachel Nichols, has been revealed courtesy of JoBlo. "...dude theyre not ripping off if it was given to them

Shelby on Apr 16, 2008


Um says JoBlo right at the top. It even links to the site. Jeez.

heckle0 on Apr 16, 2008


@joblo excellent way of making me check our your website...but i'll stick to, thanks.

Matt Suhu on Apr 16, 2008


@joblo, its the internet, simmer down. They linked straight to your article and credited you. I have seen plenty of instances on other blogs where they don't link to the original article and even crop the image to erase the watermark in the corner and then apply their own. THAT is something to get angry about. on the topic of the image, HOT DAMN.

NamelessTed on Apr 16, 2008


@joblo I was not a fan of your site's layout. I'll stick to firstshowing. And credit WAS given where credit was due, so maybe you should learn the rules of the internet.

Showtyme on Apr 16, 2008


damn that looks hot, im really hoping this will be a good movie like Transformers..

Curtis on Apr 16, 2008


Yeah, I guess you guys know all about Net etiquette, right? When a website gets an EXCLUSIVE, it's proper for other sites to SEND TRAFFIC to the site in question and NOT post the ENTIRE PHOTO on their own site. How many of you actually CLICKED on None, right? That's because the entire photo is RIGHT HERE. This site and others like are KNOWN to do this and believe you me, it's called "stealing" in some circles. Not stealing the picture, mind you...but OUR TRAFFIC. We work VERY HARD to get those exclusives, and by posting the ENTIRE PHOTO on their own site, they are stealing, especially when they then go to and post it as THEIR EXCLUSIVE. You dig this site? Good for you. I'm just telling it like it is, folks.

JoBlo on Apr 16, 2008


It isn't about giving credit. It's about not stealing the picture and hosting it on your own site so that gets none of the traffic it deserves for securing the exclusive. It is etiquette. Or manners

bats on Apr 16, 2008


At least and their entire network actually NAME THEIR SOURCES and don't try to steal the glory and site visits for themselves. You guys need to grow up and accept the fact that these photos or news are not exclusive to you and that other people work very hard to get this material.

Nick on Apr 16, 2008


I full agree with bats, it is about being respectful of someone else's hard work.

Nick on Apr 16, 2008


It isn't about hosting the image. If you want to make sure that everybody knows the image came from your site, then put your logo in the corner. That way everybody who sees the image knows it came from you. I have news for you, when you put something on the internet, it becomes everybodies. FirstShowing linked to your guys' site and gave you proper credit. Guess what, I DID click on the link to check out your site. And if I see that you continue to have good content I will start reading your site regularly, that is how it works. You can bicker about another site hosting your image all day long, but that doesn't make it stealing, you don't own the image.

NamelessTed on Apr 16, 2008


@JoBlo I'm not disagreeing with you, but there are classier ways of handling the situation. How about sending a private e-mail to this website's staff? You're just drawing negative attention to yourself. If I "stole" the photos myself and put them on my website and you addressed the issue to me I'd gladly take the pics down out of respect. If would have handled it the way you're doing it now then, well...I'd say piss off.

Frame on Apr 16, 2008


@NamelessTed You are correct. does not own the picture, but that is not what the man is saying has been stolen. It is not the picture, but the TRAFFIC. It is recognized net etiquette to send traffic to the site that got the exclusive, at least to see the full sized image. Not hosting it on your own site and keeping the traffic for yourself. @Frame You too, are correct. But perhaps such measures have been tried already, and have still been met with "piss off". Perhaps they haven't. But if this is happening all the time, and a site's livelihood is based on its traffic, don't you think think you would be pretty pissed off?

bats on Apr 16, 2008


Let's make it about the hottie in the picture, shall we? There's enough traffic to go around guys!

Pickle on Apr 16, 2008


Enough with this '@ joblo' bs... Rachel Nichols looks HOT!!! And I will be seeing this movie, no matter what.

nate on Apr 16, 2008


JoBlo, get off your high ass horse, you do not own this photo. You come from an old school netiquette that doesn't exist anymore, sorry. By the way, didn't I see you guys post The Hulk poster the other day? I thought that was a IGN exclusive?

Chad on Apr 16, 2008


This is exactly the reason I don't read JoBlo anymore. The people who run that site are major dicks.

Mike Skully on Apr 16, 2008


@Chad Look at how that poster is is sourced. It is not just a mention of IGN and then the poster. The site gives you a taster look at the poster and then forces you to click over to IGN to see the whole thing. So that they get the traffic they deserve.

bats on Apr 16, 2008


And By the way, you're wrong. JoBlo originally posted the entire image of The Incredible Hulk poster. The traffic they deserver? Jeeez dude, you're looking at this the completely wrong fucking way. Why not think about the readers for once? We don't want to click through 2 times to see the stupid fucking picture. You don't deserve traffic because Paramount threw you a bone. And besides, he linked you. If you're linked your the top result on google, and that's worth more than any stupid "click through to see the full picture" gimmicky shit.

Chad on Apr 16, 2008


Sounds like a lot of bitter grapes to me. He linked you, get over it, and get over yourselves.

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


@Chad Actually, no, you're the one who has it the wrong way. Joblo is not the top link on google, even though it should be. And do you understand the meaning of the word 'gimmick'? You have to appreciate that the people who work and write for these sites DEPEND on the traffic, or else their site dies. An extra click of your mouse is worth more than some guy's salary? You also have to appreciate that after working extremely hard to secure an exclusive (Paramount do not just "throw bones"), all of the traffic that was earned is stolen by people who take the image and host it themselves. Surely you can see that is parasitic and entirely unjust? And even if we were in this fantasy world where Paramount throws out bones. Surely, still the site that has the bone deserves more than the site that did not?

bats on Apr 16, 2008


I don't see what the fuss is all about. This is G.I. Joe we are talking about. And it's being directed by the same guy who did Van Helsing. This is going to be one hell of an awesome movie!!!!11!! Yes I'm being sarcastic.

Sam on Apr 16, 2008

26 USA Today had the exclsuive premiere rights for the new Indiana Jones Poster but JoBlo stole the full image 🙂

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


@JoBlo Sucks Again, for the cheap seats, look at what happens if you try to view that image properly. You are forced to the USA Today website so that they get the traffic that they deserve for their exclusive. Because that is the right thing to do. Am I saying it wrong?

bats on Apr 16, 2008


Bats says "And even if we were in this fantasy world where Paramount throws out bones. Surely, still the site that has the bone deserves more than the site that did not?" Then AOL would own the web wouldn't they? Wrong again. It's obvious that you guys don't know why people come to sites like FirstShowing. It's because we like Alex's optimistic opinion. We love the wide design, the big photos, the presentation, the timeliness, the type of people that comment in the comments section, and the selection of stories they decide to cover. It's all the reasons someone like me doesn't visit There are only so many DVD reviews, set reports, pointless interviews for bad movies that no one cares about, that no one cares about.

Chad on Apr 16, 2008


Bats, seems to me like you guys ran the full poster for Indiana Jones 4. You linked them just as much as FirstShowing linked JoBlo. Actually, FirstShowing has 2 links to JoBlo, so they beat you. Oh, because they are a corporate website? That makes it okay? It must be fun to live in a world where you can make arbitrary ethical rules up based on ownership. Seems to me like you guys are hypocrites.

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


@ Chad I don't understand why I am "wrong again", but okay. No one is telling you that you should go to instead of Firstshowing. If you prefer it here, that's great. Continue to read this stuff, I'm not going to debate you on issues of content. I'm merely pointing out that what was done in this article and in plenty previous is wrong. Not just on a moral basis, but on the basis that it - in the long run - will ruin sites like, or etc, simply because the people who run these blogs refuse to source fairly. It is easy to link to's full-sized picture of Scarlett, but it is not being done because whoever is writing this story is hording the traffic - that he did not earn - for himself. And it is equally easy for us as readers to click over to, see the image and then head back here.

bats on Apr 16, 2008


@JoBlo Sucks What? linked as much as FirstShowing? I will repeat this one last time, as clearly as possible. Yes, both and FirstShowing show the full poster. But it is a small version. Then, if you want to see it in its entirety (as most people do), at you are forced over to USA Today, so that they get the traffic, whereas HERE, you just see FirstShowing's full sized image, which was stolen from and hosted on its own site. As such, gets no traffic whatsoever. I hope that you understand the difference. Although if you don't, it's probably beyond my ability to explain to you.

bats on Apr 16, 2008


bats: you remind me of the peopel I know in the print media who are in denial and unwilling to change their ways to compete with online. But it's even sadder, because you're online web 1.0 unwilling to accept that the rules have changed in this web 2.0 world.

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


@ JoBlo Sucks Is that your way of admitting that I'm right, then? And yes, perhaps you are right. But you have to agree that in my web 1.0 world, journalists are ethical, whereas in the web 2.0 world that blogs like this have ushered in, journalists have little to no ethical standards. If you ask me those in the former are the more admirable and deserve the praise.

bats on Apr 16, 2008


bats: No, you're not right. Web 1.0 had different rules. Web 2.0, the rules are jsut different. Not less ethical. FirstShowing is still crediting and linking, twice actually. Links are what make web 2.0 go around, and FirstShowing is following the rules of that new world.

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


@ JoBlo Sucks Okay, I officially don't know how to talk to you. UNDERSTAND that I am saying I agree with you, web 2.0 has new rules and I am stuck in web 1.0 UNDERSTAND also that it is impossible for the two worlds to have different rules but still be just as ethical. And UNDERSTAND that you frankly know nothing about what makes the web 2.0 go around because textual links don't do shit. How can you possibly think that people will CHOOSE to clink on a textual link, just as much (or in fact since you seem to think they "make web 2.0 go around", click on them MORE) as a link that they are FORCED to click.

bats on Apr 16, 2008


bats: Refuse to change with the tide and you'll be washed away. It's a lesson that many businesses have learned the hard way.

JoBlo Sucks on Apr 16, 2008


Who knew that the people who run Joe Blow were such big douche bags. I use to visit their site from time to time but not anymore.

Dan on Apr 16, 2008


Wow... look at big bad JoBlo getting mad a widdle biddy! Waaaa, waaaaa. He stole my big picture. And seems like "Bats" is really really really on Jo's side. Hm... possible pseudonym? Geez man, leave our clean comment board alone and go back to your own hard to read, cluttered site. Next time I feel like looking at the visual vomit that is your site I'll make sure to head on over there.

Icarus on Apr 16, 2008


Go fuck yourself, Jo Blo. Stop being such a pussy.

John on Apr 16, 2008


@ JoBlo/Bats If you're so concerned about TRAFFIC, you should know that whining on other sites is probably not the most effective way to boost your own traffic. You're animostity toward others on this page does not speak well for your own sense of "etiquette" that you're preaching to Alex about. Does the "etiquette" only apply to you? It would be in your best interests to focus on your own site rather than spending your energy and time bickering with the fans and readers of other webistes.

Scarlet on Apr 16, 2008


really, Joblo does suck. And really, the picture is NOTHING! It is just a very hot Nichols 🙂

Ryan on Apr 16, 2008

42 has the same picture. I looked at the comments, but I guess JoBlo's not pissing his panties about that one.

John on Apr 16, 2008

43 OMG, Ain't it Cool News is stealing JoBlo's hits as well...

Joe Blows on Apr 16, 2008


so, im excited about this movie more and more, snake eyes looks cool, scarlet looks cool. they are keeping the costumes uniform which is cool, like Transformers, changed up the looks a bit, its still Good. IM excited to see what happens. as for JoBlo, i am not going to their site, i dont like the layout and i am not too pleased with the people and their supporters. but, thats my opinion. 🙂

taurinh24 on Apr 16, 2008


@JoBlo @bats We get it, your traffic sells ads, which in turn pays your bills. Don't you think that the people who run FirstShowing and Slashfilm live off of their sites as well? Don't you think that they have bills to pay? It is obvious, based on the comments above, that people come to this site because of the way the news is presented, not because of the news itself. I for one read Ain't It Cool every day. I saw the poster over there and didn't click through to yours... I don't give a shit about your site because your content isn't interesting. And thats what you should be focusing on. Why do people read FirstShowing instead of JoBlo... What can you do to get more readers? Stuff like that. I'll give you a hit: we don't give a flying **** who gets the exclusive (and you know that you get those because someone at the studio likes you, and sure, kissing that amount of ass is hard work) we read the news where we want to read the news. Its the same reason I read the hollywood reporter v. variety. Same news, different voice. Your voice might work for your readers, but it doesn't work for us over here. So if we don't want to visit your site, then we aren't worthy of seeing the full picture? That doesn't help the movie... And I've worked in the industry for a while, and I don't know anyone at a studio who wouldn't want you to do everything you can to help the movie... But maybe its not about the movie, or the readers... obviously it is just about you...

Voice in the Crowd on Apr 16, 2008


I'm excited about GI Joe. Snake-Eyes looks awesome, I'm a little bit more leary about Scarlett. I wish they would stick a little bit more to the uniforms. My two cents about the stealing of the content. Do I think it's stealing? Yes. Does JoBlo have a right to be angry. Yes. Did this happen before. Yep. AintItCool and a couple of other big sites came down hard on some smaller sites like They probably did threaten people with lawsuits because they do the footwork and that's what were talking about here. The revenue based on traffic is the return these sites get from going out and making connections, callilng studios, reading press releases. @Joe Blows, Aint it cool news did run the story but if you click the smaller version of the picture it links to Providing the souce is nice, but really FirstShowing is going to get nailed by someone for doing this, if it's not then maybe Yahoo Movies who probably actually pay money to get the exclusive trailers on their site which are then stolen the same day by This isn't web 2.0, it's business, be prepared for comments that are for and against. I like, and I visit every day, but I think they cross the line. Thanks for listening.

ben on Apr 16, 2008


who stole my username? I admit its spelled with an "s" but stil.l

Bat on Apr 16, 2008


@ben Honestly, websites don't own the content. I'm sure if someone from Paramount contacted FirstShowing and said "Hey, can you take that down? It was supposed to be an exclusive for JoBlo." that they would do it. The studios won't do that, because they want the images out there and they want as many people as possible to see them. JoBlo doesn't own that image, Paramount does. So it would take Paramount doing something in order for it to have any weight. And I assure you, they won't do anything... They don't really care about who gets the traffic, they care about the success of the film...

Voice in the Crowd on Apr 16, 2008


@Voice in the Crowd It's true, I'm not talking about literally stealing here, because yes, other sites have posted the info, I'm not sure what "Exclusive" means either, but I think if I pulled a bunch of strings so I got something first for my site, I would get mad if someone else just took it. But you are right, the studios don't mind I'm sure. It's a mute point anyways, the content is out there. It's cool. Good discussion.

ben on Apr 16, 2008


Yo. I'm a big fan of Alex and of the content here on Everything that folks have said about Alex's optimism and the attractive, easy-to-read format of the site has been spot-on. There's a lot to like about Alex and I should also mention that today's the first day I've even visited JoBlo. (Nothing drives traffic like controversy, eh?) That said, I agree that it was poor form to host the high-rez photo here on FirstShowing instead of linking the smaller image in this post back to JoBlo. I know if I had a huge-ish exclusive like this on my blog, I wouldn't mind other sites showing thumbnailed (i.e., smaller) images on their sites, but I'd feel pretty ripped off if those sites weren't pointing their readers to me to see the *full-rez* goodness of the *exclusive* photo that I had worked to get. @Joe Blows If you'll take a second look at Ain't It Cool's post, you'll find that clicking on the smaller photo in their post directs back to JoBlo's site for access to the big, full-rez image. I.e., AICN has "thumbnailed" the photo and is pointing readers back to the site with the exclusive on the large photo. Anyway, Alex, just my two cents. I'm still a supporter and looking forward to geeking it up with you again in a couple months at Comic-Con. - Mike

Great White Snark on Apr 16, 2008


P.S. Based on this image, I think they could safely rename this flick "Scarlett Looks Hot and Shoots Things with Her Crossbow", and still get plenty of people to see it.

Great White Snark on Apr 16, 2008


@Great White: Jo Blo is saying that you cant even host an image of the full photo, it needs to be a cropped version of the photo where you need to click through to see the full thing. Most movie news sites now a days will post the full photo or poster and link back to the source of the exclusive, where they have a higher resolution version of the photo. I think that's probably the best way to go, but then the question is how big can the photo be on Alex's site? This whole thing is ridiculous. JoBlo is linked and they will be #1 in google tomorrow, and we all know that is where the real traffic comes from.

Joe Blows on Apr 16, 2008


The deal is this. The ethics of web journalism are dicey at best. But those sites that have been around for many years, and paved the way for sites like this one, just ask that everybody play by the same set of rules. If a site gets an exclusive the other sites support them. That way when your site gets a similar exclusive you get the same support. I'd never heard of before today and I can tell you that if they treat their fellow web journalists this way they won't last much longer than the two years they've been in existence. Take some hints from the big dogs in this field and collaborate. If you want to be on top innovate in content and style - not off of the hard work of others.

Alex on Apr 16, 2008


The law says that anyone can use that image if the image is considered newsworthy, regardless of copyrights and exclusives.Look back at the Suri Cruise photos which were published in a magazine (as part of a $$ exclusive) and how Gawker was able to republish them, and didn't remove them, despite legal threats. This is how the web works folks.

The Law on Apr 16, 2008


@Joe Blows The way I understood it, JoBlo had an issue with Alex hosting the exclusive, high-rez version of the photo (found by clicking on the 'small' image in the post), instead of linking the image in the post back to the high-rez photo on JoBlo. I.e., the rights to the original, high-rez image belong to JoBlo and should be respected. That's the position with which *I* agree... but you'll have to confirm with JoBlo himself if that's exactly what he meant. 😉 Sure, Google rank is one thing, but scruples and professional consideration (and click-through traffic!) are another. On a separate note, I do hope JoBlo contacted Alex directly before leaving all-caps-heavy comments on the post, but I don't know the rest of the history/situation there.

Great White Snark on Apr 16, 2008


Just to go off of what Great White Snark just said, is most definitely not getting my traffic just because of the way this went down. There's a reason this site has the "Contact" button at the top. What they should've done is contacted Alex and worked out any quarrels privately; this site and everyone associated with it just comes off as asinine to me now. We aren't six anymore, people.

Zach on Apr 16, 2008


she looks damn good and that's all i've got to say. what's with all the arguing in the comments recently? it's ridiculous...

craziemutant on Apr 16, 2008


My guess is that 'black' will be the primary color for the G.I. Joe uniform much like they did with the X-Men films? I'm thinking they eased us in with Snake-Eyes since he's fitted in black anyway. But that's just a guess...

Frame on Apr 16, 2008


From a tactical perspective, the black does work a lot better then the yellow... The bright colors work for cartoons, toys and comics, but don't always transition well into real costumes... Imagine X-Men if they had gone with the yellow spandex. I think this will work... At least they ditched have GI Joe based in Brussels, and being some international task force...

nate on Apr 17, 2008


Wow, I truly thought that I would wake up and find that someone had understood what I was saying, but it looks like only Great White has. Thanks, buddy. @ John, Joe Blows Regarding the issue of how it is okay to have a sized version of the image, just not okay to host the full thing: I don't know if you didn't read the entire argument from the beginning, or you did and you just didn't understand. But either way, congratulations, you are both invalids. @ Voice in the Crowd You aren't an invalid, but you are close. At what point did this become a debate about internet law? Understand that everyone agrees what was done here was not against the law. Obviously if it was this site would currently be in the process of being raped by a lawsuit. What is merely being stated is that this is wrong. To take the picture and host it on your own blog is wrong. Internet sites have no real currency save for the stories they can break. And that's what was stolen here. Officially it is not against any law, but it is very, very wrong. @ Joe Blows Good job on making the list again, dude: two retarded arguments in one post. Nice! "they will be #1 in google tomorrow, and we all know that is where the real traffic comes from." Do you? Do you really know that? Do you run a successful website? I would LOVE for you to tell me you do and you've been doing so longer than, which has been around for over a decade. What frame of reference do you have for this incredible statement? Do you not think that if that was all that matters, someone from a site like who has never spoken out before about anything, whose site policy is not to air dirty laundry, would do this? Do some research, pal. Or maybe you did. Maybe you know. Maybe you invented the internet. @ Everyone who is harping about sending a private email and not making it public in the comments section You're right, making this dispute public is bad. It certainly doesn't help But guess what, that approach has already been taken, and has been met with a resounding "this is how we do things at blogs, you can go fuck yourself". There was a guy up there who said, incredibly proud of himself, something to the effect of "yes but you had the full incredible hulk poster originally". Correct, sir! And I have a feeling you might be Peter from Slashfilm, since you pulled up on this originally, didn't you? Funny thing, difference was, when you did, JoBlo changed it, and an email was sent out to all staff members saying MAKE SURE you don't do that again. Whereas when the blogs are politely asked to change something, to respect an exclusive, they tell you to hit the bricks. I think I've covered everyone there, but I can't be sure.

bats (James T) on Apr 17, 2008


I notice I did forget one of you: @ Voice in the Crowd "We get it, your traffic sells ads, which in turn pays your bills. Don't you think that the people who run FirstShowing and Slashfilm live off of their sites as well? Don't you think that they have bills to pay? It is obvious, based on the comments above, that people come to this site because of the way the news is presented, not because of the news itself. I for one read Ain't It Cool every day. I saw the poster over there and didn't click through to yours… I don't give a shit about your site because your content isn't interesting...." ^ That's the comment this is in reference to. The whole diatribe was a peach, but you know, space issues and whatnot, this is what I'm talking about. Yes, FirstShowing and Slashfilm live off of their sites too. Good for them. But the stuff they are peddling and leeching off of is not what they have EARNED. I truly - although I may be wrong - do not think that Slashfilm for example, has ever received a studio exclusive, HOWEVER, sometimes they find shit that I would not have otherwise found myself. And when they do, I send you to them, because they have EARNED that traffic. When EARNS the traffic, no one is sent to us. Do you understand? Everyone is doing what they can to live off of their sites, but only some of us are being parasitic about it. You then ramble on at length about how the content is better here, layout is better here, whatever. Good job talking about something that does not matter to this argument in the least. For the last time (because if you scroll up you will see I've said this before) NOBODY is trying to get you to go to If I'm truly honest, yeah, I like the layout here, it's cool. I will not however, be back, unless it's to this page to see what you guys throw up against me next, since I do not like what whoever runs this site has done regarding the exclusive. If you want to stay here: FINE. And then, probably the greatest statement of all time, save for the dude earlier who said Google results are all that matters: " for one read Ain't It Cool every day. I saw the poster over there and didn't click through to yours… I don't give a shit about your site because your content isn't interesting..." Do you understand that you fully prove the point here? Do you understand that the cause you're fighting for is completely destroyed by what you just said? Here I am crusading against all of you guys saying needs the forced link for the bigger picture, otherwise they get no traffic, while all of your buddies are telling me textual links (of which this site has two, TWO!!!!) are just as, if not MORE important. And here you are, you galoot, admitting (although, probably by accident) that you didn't even use them, because you know, WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU?? See now how even though works their asses off to get exclusives, they get absolutely no traffic, which is what allows them to operate in the first place? I assume you don't because, let's call a spade a spade here, you're a moron, but hopefully you other guys do.

bats (James T) on Apr 17, 2008


Whos Never heard of it. hahhahahhaha

REAL6 on Apr 17, 2008


@bats Let me ask you this. How is publicly being a huge douchebag helping your cause? And more specifically, have you contacted Alex about this issue personally? And no, I am not Peter from Slashfilm, so get bent.

Voice in the Crowd on Apr 17, 2008


@bats I've read the whole discussion, and I'm well aware of the debate regarding the whole image vs. a thumbnail, etc. So congratulations, you're pathetic.

John on Apr 17, 2008


Okay guys, I think this will be the final message here. @Voice in the Crowd I have to say, I am not in the slightest surprised that you somehow took what I wrote to mean that I thought you were Peter from Slashfilm. Although, not because I said that (because I clearly didn't) but just given the kinds of things you've been writing thus far. To be honest I'm surprised you didn't read what I wrote and think I accused you of terrorism, or grand larceny, or intergalactic warmongering. Also, then instead of debating this in a public forum, what, when polite private requests fall upon deaf ears, I should keep silent while people steal from others? @John Great. So turns out, you HAVE read the entire discussion, but you still don't understand it. As you yourself say, you're merely "aware" of it. I guess that's a start. I don't think you quite grasp the meaning of the word "pathetic". Realize that whether this issue is resolved or not affects me in pretty much no way at all. It is just that I know JoBlo and that the people over there work really hard for their exclusives, and it just sickens me to see this kind of thing happen. If not on the moral basis, but on the basis that JoBlo and sites like his were the ones who began this medium and it is just downright disrespectful. Is it pathetic to stand up for these guys when they've been cheated out of their hard earned traffic? I guess only you know the answer to that. Anyway, it appears now that the issue HAS been resolved. Hopefully, this won't happen again.

bats on Apr 17, 2008


Wow, issue fixed. Looks like all you really had to do was contact Alex and ask him to change a link. Maybe the staff at JoBlo just enjoys public douche-baggery more than just communicating when they feel like their toes have been stepped on. Congrats to JoBlo and Bats, you guys look like petulant little five year olds who had their toy taken and instead of asking for it back, you just started crying. Please cry your way back to your own visually assaulting site and stay there.

Icarus on Apr 17, 2008


I think the proof is in the pudding on this one. Traffic is key, and to rob a site of exclusive content by 'stealing' it is bunk. If you provide a full size picture on your site, what's the incentive for someone to click over to where it was sourced? To gripe about the public nature of the complaint is one thing, but to disagree that this is poor netiquette is absurd. That said, bravo to for changing the link...however it'd be nice to see this happen without probing in future.

Mr Jinx on Apr 17, 2008


Yes, bats. It's pathetic how much effort you're putting into this. JoBlo can pontificate about "the rules of the Internet" all he likes (by the way, what rules? Did Steve Jobs descend from Mt. Sinai with these ancient rules while I wasn't looking?). But he obviously knows nothing about common courtesy, otherwise he'd have taken this up with Alex discreetly rather than throw a little temper tantrum on the comments.

John on Apr 17, 2008


Common courtesy? Dudes, the way that Slashfilm, FilmSchoolrejects and Firstshowing do business is void of common courtesy. Ask them about their Digg Bury Brigades and how they bury other sites stories and then run the same story as theirs. These sites never break any stories and leach off other real movie sites, they are Para-Sites!

ArseBreath on Apr 17, 2008


Everytime I see a pic from this I think it looks so good, then I remember how good the pics for DOOM looked heh, I hate that I think that.

Richard on Apr 17, 2008


ArseBreath, Alex cited his source and linked to it - that, to me, is common courtesy.

John on Apr 17, 2008


@ArseBreath Whoa, whoa, whoa, dude... Why do you have to bring Film School Rejects into this? What did we ever do to you? It seems like you have a bigger issue with us? Do I know you? Because I think maybe I do...

Neil (Film School Rejects) on Apr 17, 2008


I'd say etiquette is a two way street. Perhaps, as a courteous gesture, First Showing should have posted a referral link instead, but wouldn't it have been far more reasonable to contact the staff here via e-mail if there was a problem? I'm sure the good folks at JoBlo would comply if, say, the Sun Online asked them to take down the uncredited picture they have of Sophie Monk. Now, I don't proclaim any allegiance to First Showing. I just lurk around and read the news where I see it first, whether it's Variety,, or here. I'm just making a point. Respect begets respect.

John on Apr 18, 2008


^This is a different John btw. I didn't bother to differentiate myself from the other one(s).

John on Apr 18, 2008


@ John "Yes, bats. It's pathetic how much effort you're putting into this. JoBlo can pontificate about "the rules of the Internet" all he likes (by the way, what rules? Did Steve Jobs descend from Mt. Sinai with these ancient rules while I wasn't looking?). But he obviously knows nothing about common courtesy, otherwise he'd have taken this up with Alex discreetly rather than throw a little temper tantrum on the comments." At this point, I'm not even sure you're aware of what you're talking about. Apparently now it is "pathetic" to put "much effort" into fighting a just cause. I literally don't know why the hell I went to university; I have learned so much just talking to you, man. The allies should probably have given up in 1914 too, right? I mean it's pathetic how much effort they put into fighting for what they believed was right. Same with Martin Luther King: what a pathetic son of a bitch. Fuck all those guys. Also, dude are you slow? Before, I thought it was funny to rip on you, but now I'm actually concerned I might be being insensitive. I've said about three times now that bloggers have been contacted in the past, discreetly, and asked to please honor etiquette. And the reply has been "this is how we do things at blogs, tough shit". I genuinely think that if this is not getting through to you, you might need to seek further help. @ Icarus Great. Of course you know everything that's happening. You know that we debated this issue for a whole day and then magically thought, you know what, why don't we send the webmaster an email. We of course, did that, and then voila, it was changed. Yes, that's exactly how it went down. Also, probably should look up the meaning of the word "communicating". "Public douche-baggery", you might find, is still "communicating".

bats on Apr 18, 2008


heh, so in this situation is carlos mencia and joeblow is joe rogan? lol

Avelanch on Apr 18, 2008


I will never go to Way to go dudes......making yourselves look real bad.

Cliffy on Apr 19, 2008


bats, I'm sorry, did you just compare a movie's press photo to the Holocaust?

John on Apr 19, 2008


@ John I'm done with this. Issue has been resolved and I don't want to waste any more time. All I will say is the next time you're in a situation where you're required to exhibit even a basic level of knowledge on human history: probably keep your mouth shut. I don't know what the hell you think either World War 1 or Martin Luther King have to do with the Holocaust, brother.

bats on Apr 19, 2008


I guess I'm a little late on this, but I would like to say the only reason I never go to is because it's blocked by my workplace's internet filter. Apparently, Mr. Blo, you are a victim of your own success. Either that or the good folks at Websense have it in for you.

kevjohn on Apr 21, 2008


good thing that this issue/concern was resolved... it's always nice to know that there are people (still) who strives to do what is right and are never afraid to act on it... and i pity those whose excuse is "the world has changed and right now this is how things are done" and strives to make it as a norm in the society we live in, even though it's something that degrades the quality of a human being... my only wish is that this kind of situation will not happen to those whom i pity... every now and then we commit mistakes but the one thing that separates the wise ones from the rest, is the courage to admit it and consciously strive not to repeat the same mistaken again... but then again, that's just me...

miracle disease on Apr 24, 2008


This may in fact be one of the more pathetic threads I've ever read. Bats/Joblo congrats to you. You do not strike me remotely as journalists, but as fanboys bickering. Fucking sad.

Beatmiser on Apr 26, 2008


Rest of the world's perspective: JoBlow CLEARLY still plays w/ GI Joe Dolls. Yes. I called them dolls. If you role play w/ them, it's called dolls. And yes, accusing someone of "intergalactic war-mongering" even in passing is one and only one thing: PATHETIQUE'. Girl is HOT. JoBlow can blow me. Netiquette is for the birds. Long live WELL DESIGNED FUCKING SITES LIKE THIS ONE. (Although I fear, Alex, by appointing a 'Comics Specialist' you're playing favorites here...) I LIVE TO SEE PEOPLE WHO'S ONLINE LIVES ARE MORE INTERESTING THAN THEIR REAL ONES PERISH. There are wars going on all over the world, there are people starving in the very cities you live in, America is fast turning into a 3rd World country w/ the Power Elite protected in gated communities & protected by surveillance networks, and ALL you can say you accomplished in your short time here on Earth is setting up a "Professional Fan-Site"???!!! Gimme a break. I've got at least a book's worth of Real World experiences to write down, and a life to continue living. GI JOE ARE TOYS. Sorry. DOLLS.

Djorschach on Apr 30, 2008

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram