So, this week almost had an ABAB pattern as far as Bloggery topics go. Two posts devoted to Bruno and now two devoted to Wolverine. If only we had six of these a week I could make it all paired up with an additional Bloggery post focused on how Regal cinemas allegedly won’t show Ice Age 3 in 3D if Fox indeed pushes the entire cost of 3D glasses onto theatre owners. I guess it’s not that big a deal to film bloggers, though, anyway. They’re much too excited about the non-trade-confirmed casting news of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddie Krueger for the Nightmare on Elm Street reboot (all I can think of is Freddie cutting off penises — even his own — with his glove). As one of the few horror franchises I liked growing up, Elm Street is too sacred for me, as is Robert Englund as Krueger, to bother skimming the posts celebrating the remake, and Haley in it. So, instead, I’m going back to the other clawed character making headlines this week, because the X-Men Origins: Wolverine piracy story is just too big* to have been covered in one post:

*Before going into the bullets, here is a disclaimer that I am aware of what The Hot Blog’s David Poland has to say about the continuation of this story:

The Wolverine leak story is pretty much over.

But Fox now faces a different challenge than we have seen in the past… Mainstream Bloggers hanging onto a story like this well beyond its expiration date because they sense heat and because there is so little else out there to write about in the boring spring.

Okay, Dave, but as long as there’s little else to write about, I’m going to hang on to the hang-on. Besides, you simply can’t be done with this until you’ve watched the video at the bottom of this post. Now, the Bloggery:

• Christine Spines at Entertainment Weekly’s Hollywood Insider posted an exclusive response from Fox chairman Tom Rothman last night, confirming that the leaked version doesn’t include any of the footage from the reshoots filmed earlier this year. Also, making William Goss‘ satire of Rothman from Cinematical seem even more authentic, the studio exec had this to say:
  

  “Hugh was heartbroken and hurt when he found out. He’s lived with this thing for 10 years. But he’s also a man and knows that life isn’t fair, and is more determined than ever,” Rothman says. “Hugh and I exchanged e-mails: Basically, we’re not going to let the bastards win. But we didn’t use the word ‘bastards.’ That’s a slightly sanitized version.”

• Jeff Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere passes word of a potential break in the investigation of who leaked the movie:
  

  Robert Wilonsky has a story on his blog that may have something to do with the Wolverine leak. That’s the rumor, at least. There was an FBI raid at a “huge internet hub” in Dallas this morning. The owner released a statement saying it has something to do with a customer of theirs, and that the FBI needed access to their information.

• At Vulture, Mark Graham has a roundup of potential culprits in the leak, while Lane Brown shares some controversial screenshots from the leaked film. Introducing a slideshow of images, he writes:
  

  anyone with eyes can tell you that the leaked version is unfinished, with missing scenes, placeholder music, and tons of hilarious half-rendered special effects. Want proof? Click for fifteen reasons why Wolverine will look better on the big screen.

• The response to Vulture’s post has been pretty negative from much of the blogosphere. Kristopher Tapley at In Contention writes:
  

  New York magazine’s decision to post images from and commentary on the work print is deplorable to say the least.  I understand the blog’s desire to stay “hip” and maintain that characteristic snarkiness, and sure, it’s a funny post.  But how is this okay?

• The Playlist is suspicious of a review of the leaked film from Fox News critic Roger Friedman:
  

  Fox as corp is off message. Friedman says the film is “95 percent completed,” but yesterday 20th Century Fox chairman Tom Rothman said the picture is very “unfinished” and “a complete misrepresentation of the film.” So which one is it guys?

  We all appreciate what Fox is going through, but unctuous moves like Friedman’s (and these flubs under the parent umbrella) make these kinds of PR salvages all the more transparent. This will actually turn people against the studio and the film all the more. Word to the wise.

• Spill.com has apparently been getting some shit for having a review of the leaked film on its site, a quote from which was featured on CNN. Here is part of the response from Spill.com’s Korey Coleman:
  

  let me be forthcoming and tell you I knew about the blog containing the movie review, and made it clear I didn’t want it featured on the front page. In retrospect now maybe I should’ve deleted the post, maybe I should’ve thought more about the repercussions of such a blog. Or maybe this is one of those occurrences that is simply no big deal and will be forgotten in a day or two. All I can say is I expressed my wishes and focused my mind on what I thought was more important at that time.

• Scott Von Doviak at Screengrab defends his friends at Spill.com:
  

  I’m a little biased because Korey and some of his cohorts are friends of mine, but I’m going with the “no such thing as bad publicity” theory here. The Spill reviews are often hilarious and insightful, and if this CNN report leads more movie fans to discover that for themselves, that’s all to the good.

• Elisabeth Rappe at Cinematical quotes from an interview with the film’s director, Gavin Hood, from Risky Biz Blog, to clear the air that neither Rothman nor Hood were likely behind the leak:
  

  “…Nobody’s trying to screw up the movie. I mean, there’s this stupid notion out there that Tom Rothman wants to ruin the franchise. What? That’s stupid … This is a huge thing for the studio. Of course he doesn’t want to ruin the franchise. Is he going to put a gun to his own head? He has a huge amount riding on this movie, as do I…”

• Here is a hilarious spoof of the leaked movie from Funny Or Die (via Topless Robot):