It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Tempest, meet Teapot.
Let me walk you through this one more time.
—> Internet allows every asshole with an opinion to become a film critic.
—> aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes don’t stop at just legit critics they actually count the reviews of the assholes, making them think they matter
—> if the opinion of every asshole matters then no opinion matters
—> The Death of Criticism
David you and a handful of people are discussing this. Most people don’t even bother to think twice about it. And to be honest, I have to go with most people. No amount of bad reviews stopped Transformers 2 from being the #1 movie at the BO in 2009. No amount of good reviews made people want to go see The Hurt Locker.
What we are seeing now is the maelstrom just before all the water in the bowl goes down the drain. Armond White is revealed as the biggest asshole of them all. Roger Ebert, formerly the critic’s punchline, now is suddenly revered as the old guard. And film critics become any asshole with a keyboard. As a film producer I welcome this- no one in history has said or is likely to say “Wow that dude at Cinematical hated this film I am not going.” As a film fan I have always made up my own mind anyway.
Welcome to the World That Knowles Created David. It is not going to change in your lifetime.
With some due respect, Mr. Murphy, The Hurt Locker was never going to do gangbusters at the box office. As it has been proven time and time again over the past seven years, including just this weekend past, the general public does not want to see movies about the current Middle East conflict.
But reviews do matter, when it comes to films that aren’t as pre-packaged as something like Transformers. LXG had only slightly worse reviews than T2, yet one only did $66m and the other did $402m. Part of that is because LXG wasn’t quite the known commodity Transformers were, and potential viewers needed more information about it.
I find it kind of suspect to some of Newton’s claims. Am I really expected to believe the big wigs at Variety would open up so honestly naked to some minor independent film producer about the future of their paper? I can understand a bit of assuaging the ego of some schlub who has forked over a nice chunk of change to make himself feel like he’s a player, but not to this kind of level. I ain’t buying it.
Edward baby honey- League did $200 million world wide and $80 million on dvd, thank you very much, and it continues a regular run on US and UK tv. This despite, as you point out, a plethora of cookie cutter reviews that compared it unfavorably to the source material.
I also assure you that I know Nicolas Chartier and that every one associated with that film thought it WOULD do gangbusters. Hoped it would. PRAYED it would.
Do you think critics affected DEAR JOHN? Or REMEMBER ME? Or really anything in the last three years?
Keep repeating “reviews matter” because that might make it so.
As much as I wish reviews mattered more, most of the time I don’t think they do. Negative reviews do not keep people away from Dear John or Alice in Wonderland or Transformers, etc. There do seem to be examples of it helping from time to time. What about all the raves for Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart? Is that a movie that does $35 million (and counting) without good reviews that help spread the word? Every so often it seems like there’s an example of reviews (possibly) helping. To what extent? I don’t know. Most of the time, though, I don’t think they matter much. Younger viewers are the most coveted audience with most movies and they really do not care about reviews. They don’t read them or pay attention to them.
I do think Edward is dead wrong about The Hurt Locker and it drives me nuts that so many smart people have bought into this lie. They never sold Hurt Locker to anyone outside of the predetermined art house audience that they feared it could not break past. This is where we get stuck in the rut… choices are made… but people still want every answer in a neat package.
And Don, you aren’t wrong about what you are saying. But ethical considerations will matter to me until the very end. Perhaps I was have to get out of this racket as the obnoxious noise continues to grow. SXSW is showing some signs of being the New Media Clusterfuck for the next decade. But whatever I do, doing it right will matter.
And AICN didn’t create this world… the studios created it by buying in. Marketing wins over quality. Therefore, eliminating tastemakers who cannot be controlled or counted on to bend to their will is in their interest as well. What they forget is that money is being left on the table and that when you are in the franchise business only, you can get crushed by 2 or 3 mistakes. And eventually, someone will be… again. History forgotten is history repeated.
Heh… I love the qualifiers flying around:
“(Tran2) being the #1 movie at the BO in 2009″ (Avatar earnings being split 2009/2010)
“With some due respect” (not all? ;))
“every one associated with that film thought it would do gangbusters” (except the original author)
I partially agree with you Don – when determining whether something is a hit or smash reviews rarely come into it. Hell, New Moon passed Hurt Locker before the opening credits rolled for the midnight screenings. But frequent filmgoers are still a minority of the population – both general and in the theaters. The majority of the takings come after the opening weekend, and that’s where word of mouth gets into play. “Yeah, I heard it’s supposed to be pretty good” may mean the difference between 2.5x opening weekend and 3.5x. Are you really rolling in enough money that you’re willing to leave 30% of an 8-digit opening on the table?
Speaking of AICN, of course they are running SXSW reviews now. A recent one for Monsters just screams plant. It is an unequivocal rave that is short on detail and long on praise. I have no proof it’s a plant, but it sure reads like one, and my first thought was, I doubt they even care one way or the other. Running it at all seemed pointless.
Critics don’t matter as much as we’d like to…but to cite one example I can think of, Vera Farmiga was an Oscar nominee this year in large part because critical support for DOWN TO THE BONE got her some attention.
What the LAFCA push for Down To The Bone did was to get her the next job. And that’s not nothing. It had nothing to do, in my opinion, with her nomination this year.
I don’t think The Hurt Locker wins this year without the critics… or without Avatar.
Nothing beats marketing. But layers of publicity, including critics, can help move a movie forward or backwards… not all movies.
It’s easy to make the “reviews don’t matter” argument when one is talking about a gigantic pre-sold movie like “Transformers 2” — of course they don’t. But, hypothetically speaking, do you think if a movie like, say, “While She Was Out” had gotten good reviews it might have actually gotten theatrical distribution and not gone straight-to-video? Just wondering.
I wonder if Don can say anything good about Transformers 2 beyond the fact that he made a crapload of money off of it.
ALL Word of mouth is NOT reviews. I do think it matters what people think of a movie. I do think Facebook and Twitter and water cooler chatter matter A LOT. But these people are not critics. Leaving aside my opinion or yours people liked Transformers 2. All around the globe. Word of mouth is that elusive something people have been trying to bottle since movies began.
Foamy – I have the Variety chart for 2009. TF2 is on the top of it by a wide margin. No qualifier- just the facts that DP desperately seeks.
David Of course the studios were complicit in the New World Order. But FatFuck Harry envisioned it- a world where the opinion of every asshole could be heard. It’s called the AintItCool Talkbacks.
Cock While She Was Out was theatrically distributed. Do you just speak and assume you are right or regularly talk out of your ass? Just wondering.
Cock, Diet furthermore I am not making an argument. I am stating a fact- Reviews don’t matter and have not for 3 to 5 years. No amount of wishing can change that.
Cock, Jeff I wonder why you think I should have to say anything about my franchise other than it is designed to entertain and appeal to a large amount of people and it does so extremely well. Now go back and clean up that lavatory you left a spot.
Well, Don, I’ll grant you this much: Good reviews (including mine) didn’t seem to help Permanent Midnight very much.
I was right, he can’t.
Joe That was 12 years ago. The slow death of reviews didn’t fully take root until 2006/7.
Jeff and there’s a lot of used TP in the bins.
Hey Don, no need to apologize (ha ha). I’m sure if I had made as much money as you had, I’d want to spin extreme rationalizations for the horrible movies with my name on them, too.
And with that, I am done feeding the troll for today. Laters.
jeff– you have been banned from other sites for being a useless douche, why do you even engage your betters? I didn’t apologize and I have not spun. Now clean that brush.
DM: Unlike Jeff, I’m not hating on the ‘Formers. The first was a perfect popcorn pic; (the sequel, not so much) and, again, you’re absolutely right that it’s the kind of film for which reviews don’t matter in the slightest. And, with apologies, I humbly stand corrected on the issue of “Out” having gotten a theatrical release. But my point was that a smaller “indie” picture like “Out” is precisely the type of movie that reviews could have helped, theoretically at least — if it had gotten raves, it might have been able to hold onto the theatres it did manage to book longer and expand into more than two markets. As much as studios like to say “reviews don’t matter” (and I agree with your premise that their currency has been severely devalued), they’re quick to trumpet raves and “ten best list” citations when it can help. And sometimes they do help.
Diet I think it’s more or less an ego thing. Like winning an Oscar. A good review like a Top Ten list might make you feel good for a minute or two. But meaningful- nah.
Don – The irrelevance of reviews is connected to massive increases in marketing, not the web or the Harryization of critical discussion… just for the record.
AICN preaches to a specific, very narrow group. So do mainstream critics. My “Geek 8,” meaning the entire geek audience and little else can get you an $8m opening, may now be The Geek 12. And The Chick 12 is now the Chick 16, unless you can get older women – over 30 – interested too… and then it’s the Chick 38.
But all the AICN preaching in the world will not open a movie and all the AICN bitching in the world will not keep one from opening. Same with critics.
But was it really every any different? The idea of critics having power came from a time when the numbers were much, much smaller. Stories like Bonnie and Clyde were defined by critics influencing the power players, not the mainstream audiences. And that still happens. Sadly, Harry has some of that juice. But he is not alone. Moon, for instance, would not have had US distribution without critical raving at Sundance.
If you want to do Transformers numbers, critics absolutely do not matter. The $150m in marketing worldwide is what matters.
As for Trannys 2, the film made 84% of its domestic revenue in its first 17 days of release. I cannot speak with any authority as to how 40+ million ticket buyers felt about the film. But I can say pretty definitively that the revenue cycle does not reflect a great word-of-mouth hit. It reflects a big ass sales campaign and a movie that pretty much delivered big robots kicking ass, as advertised, not matter how lame the story, acting, or dialogue.
Is $200 million world wide really that great of a number for League? It doesn’t seem that great for a massive movie like that, the other day I accidentally tripped and found three million under my dining room table.
“What the LAFCA push for Down To The Bone did was to get her the next job. And that’s not nothing. It had nothing to do, in my opinion, with her nomination this year.”
David – my point was she’d never have gotten the nomination without that next job you mention. I did not mean to say that critics buoyed this year’s specific performance…only that her acting opposite George Clooney at all is a long-term result of critics singling her out early on.
Save your time, this is all you need to know about how Don Murphy feels: “The Death of Criticism… As a film producer I welcome this….”
You can quote me on that.
Thanks.
Yours truly,
Tholly.
Well of course. Don is obviously coming from a position where his job gets easier and easier when the public is less discriminating and has lower standards.
DP – You miss the entire point about the Harry of it all- Harry invented the modern internet film buff, all of who think their asshole opinions matter because they are in “print.” If every asshole opinion none does. It is not marketing, it is the democratization of film “reviewing” that destroyed it. RE TF 2, your theory falls apart since the DVD sold a jillion copies the week it opened to the same people that you would maintain didn’t like it.
Perm the tripper I don’t know what you would mean by great but numbers wise based on costs that’s pretty solid.
THolly– you’ve been a long posting doofus, but of course I welcome that with open arms. When every asshole has an opinion and no opinion matters anymore that’s a good thing. YOu don’t have the Rex Reed’s of the world having unearned and misused power.
You’re a cypher on the animus of a baby throwing out its own bathwater.
T. Holly, you have to make sense if you want to sting somebody.
Don: Ok, I have a serious, respectful, 100-percent snark-free question to ask: You say reviews have not mattered for 3-5 years. What do you think was the turning point, or tipping point? I mean, Harry Knowles has been around for a decade or so. What happened in 2005 or 2008 that you think was a game changer?
mcm, you know nothing of a quantity of no importance or the masculine principle present in the female unconscious that makes Don’s argument specious and circular. Good Q Joe, for all we know, that’s just when Don tuned in.
Joe L I don’t believe in lightning… basically we hit a shitload of movie sites all of whom think they are relevant and like the straw on the camel, fin..
Perm tell me your address in nyc and I will help you clean your house.
A critic’s opinion never deterred me from seeing a movie, but there were people I liked to read, nevertheless, David being one.
I do think AICN changed the definition of critic and flooded the place with exhausting white noise.
As a result of the post 2003 boom of users and posters on movie websites, and the advent of instant updates, few people will sit through reading an article about any movie by a movie writer anyway.
There’s too much to choose from re. actual articles about movies, and most of it badly written. WHo has time to find a good critic.
But Word of mouth is awesome, since it can’t be controlled, and only manipulated a little on opening weekend.
The public doesn’t have lower standards Jeff, the standards are the same as they always have been. There’s just more of all of it.
Don, so you think reviews may have still mattered as late as, say, the mid-’90s? Going further: Would say that, roughly speaking, 1967-1995 may have been the golden age for film criticism (in the US, at least)?
Joe L Golden age? 1965 or whenever Kael hit her stride to 1985/86. Then you have a silver age for the rest of the 80s, a bronze age in the 90s and the Age of Poo Poo today.
T. Holly, you’ve got me there. I literally have no idea what you’re talking about.
don is right on the money.
the internet killed the movie critic.
because it became about brands. aint it cool is a brand. who cares if the review is from the ginger kid, a regular contributor, or some guy who sent in a review from a test screening.
the hardest part of the online critic experience has been the nameless rabble trying to make a name for themselves using aliases.
the name of the critic became less important than the website. AINT IT COOL might have value on a poster, but it makes the name of the person who wrote the article irrelevant.
opinions are like assholes. and every asshole was given websites to post their reviews. now the brands have value but the people writing for them don’t.
and that’s why criticism is dead.
Donny… let me ask you this… how much did you personally profit from the release of LXG? Not your producer’s fee going in to the project, but your back end? Because if you didn’t make a bunch off profit participation, then how much it made worldwide and on DVD means squat.
David… with all due respect, you need to wake up concerning modern movies concerning the current Middle East conflicts. We’ve had dozens of them, that all have underperformed, even going back to the first Iraqi conflict with Courage Under Fire and Three Kings. Didn’t matter if they had $75m budgets or $75k budgets. Didn’t matter if they starred A-list stars or complete unknowns. Didn’t matter if they had critical support or even Oscar support. There is not a single one of them that performed to any level that would be considered financially successful. Sure, The Hurt Locker financiers may actually realize a profit somewhere down the line, thanks to the ever-increasing revenue streams now and in the future, but from Courage Under Fire and Three Kings to The Kingdom and Lions for Lambs and Body of Lies and The Green Zone that directly or indirectly deal with these wars on terror, these films have not seen mass acceptance, and that is the main reason why there are so few, if any, more of these movies in the pipeline in our immediate future. One or two misfires is one thing. Twenty or thirty sends a clear signal.
Joe… forget it. It’s Chinatown.
Well, had Courage Under Fire or Three Kings been made for the 75K you mentioned and made their 60 million domestic as they did, then I think that would have been considered financially successful.
As is, 60 mil for adult dramas seem okay-ish. Hollywood’s problem is they want to spend too much on these movies.
Havens – DO I know you? I think not. So fuck you when you address me call me Sir. Bitch.
I don’t think Havens is going to do that.
Well then he best not address me at all.
MURPHY – How ironic is it that you expect me to call you “sir” because I don’t know you, but it’s perfectly acceptable for you to call me “bitch?” Actually, not all that ironic at all. It’s just who you show yourself to be.
Do I know you personally? No, I’ve never had the displeasure of being in the same room with to the best of my knowledge. Judging from how I’ve seen you present yourself to the world, that’s probably a good thing. I just sometimes need a reminder why I purposely avoid you.
Talk to you again in 2017, pigfucker!
True – critics are an increasingly smaller component of word-of-mouth.
But here’s the thing – you can manage the Critic Process ™ a lot more than you can manage the Average Filmgoer Process ™. I’d be fairly astonished if someone on your team didn’t consider issues like which critics to target for screening, or even whether to have advance screenings for critics at all (even if in the end you decided “Fuck em, they don’t matter”).
I guess my point is that while critics no longer act as “Kingmaker” like they used to do (and even that’s debatable), if you fail to manage the critical review process you’re probably leaving money on the table. Just like you spend time and effort (and money) on environmental Dolby/THX sound effects despite it having virtually no impact on the make-or-break of the film.
Havens Bitch – you called me by a nickname that I don’t even use… and you are upset that I call you by a name that defines you? Purposely avoid me sir? You think you’ve ever been permitted to be in the same area as me? I don’t.
Funny thing is I clicked on your name and it took me to a site called Film Jerk (how appropriate) wherein I noted that this jerkstick Brian Orndorf writes “reviews”… he is the PERFECT example of what I was referring to in my original posting. A mentally challenged moron with no taste or writing skill, I met Mr. O two movies ago wherein he was, get this, writing crappy reviews then linking them to IMDB begging readers to read them. And this is someone who is “counted” by Rotten Tomatoes! Why has criticism died indeed!
What happens in 2017 to the pigfucker? I don’t get the reference and I’m not sleeping with your mom no matter how much you bet me bitch so please elaborate.
HAHAHAH… good lord, I needed this laugh.
I fully expected you to go for the low-brow on Pigfucker, which is why I threw it out. You’re that predictable. If you were half as smart as you try to pass yourself to be, you would have known it is a colloquialism popularized by Hunter S. Thompson.
Donnie, nothing you could ever say to me in any form of speech, textual or verbal, would upset me in the least. You could say I have a small penis. You could call my wife a bitch, my brother a cocksucker and my mother a dirty whore, and it’d bother me not. I don’t care about you and I don’t care about your films.
We all know the real reason why you don’t like film critics. They don’t really like you, and outside of Shoot ‘Em Up, they really don’t like your movies. And that’s okay. We know how you measure success. Not in Oscars or critics awards, and not in the honest critical analysis of a Roger Ebert or a Joe Morgenstern. All your movies need is a girl and a gun… and a lot of shit blowing up. Except, shit that didn’t work so much for Shoot ‘Em Up, did it? Critical support, yet didn’t make back its production budget worldwide.
And how funny is it that you ran off and sent Brian an email to call me a douchebag? Jesus, it’s been 15 months since he panned your wife’s movie. Get over it, already! Especially for someone who claims to not give a shit about critics.
Okay, let’s turn this around – in a hypothetical world where you could somehow stop any asshole posting their opinion on the interwebs, what would be the role of Critics and how would they be regulated?
Would they be influencers (“I like this movie, you should see it”) or predictors (“I don’t like this movie, not many people will see it”)?
Would they be internally regulated (i.e. approved by duly appointed authorities) or externally regulated (i.e. approved by whether a significant proportion of filmgoers/industry pay attention to their writing)?
The reason I ask is that, even in an “ideal” sandbox, the role of criticism isn’t cut and dried. It’s a bit ridiculous to think that their importance should merely be a function of calling themselves “critic” – rather, it should be more a function of their ability to read and relay information. I doubt Mr Orndorf is as influential as Mr Ebert despite the fact that according to Rotten Tomatoes they count equally as 1 review.
(I’ll add the caveat that the amount of people who decide based on an individual review is likely an order or two of magnitude below the amount of people who decide based on water cooler consensus… but in reaching that consensus Mr E likely has people paying attention to him personally whereas Mr O is likely just a RT statistic)
This is getting ugly. Too ugly. I wouldn’t have even referenced “While She Was Out” if I’d realized DM’s wife was involved with it. I was simply trying to cite a recent picture of his that stood as a polar opposite to “Transformers” and might have refuted his “critics don’t matter” thesis. And I got my facts wrong, was rightfully called out on it and, like a man, owned up and apologized. I don’t know where all this other bile is coming from, but it’s getting really childish and kinda scary.
EH: A word of advice: Don’t drag someone’s family into a pissing match. It qualifies as hitting below the belt and is likely to open up Pandora’s box.
Bet you all miss Lex G now. To paraphrase “Shane”: “LEX… COME BAAAAAACKKKK!!!”
Foamy– you hit the nail on the head, solidifying what I have been saying since this am- if any asshole can be a critic then every asshole is a critic.
dietcock You’ve been great. Don’t worry about it. Havens is a little child who just found out that Mommy never loved him so he is smearing his feces on the wall. He’ll get over it.
Havens Oh how clever, you threw it out and I retorted. Please, you’re a performing chimp and I laugh at you okay? I can’t upset you? Every one of your replies shows that I have upset you. Because anyone who exposes you as a chimp is upsetting to your worldview. Critics don’t like my films? I guess all the clipped reviews for BULLY I’d better burn, and the critics who labeled Natural Born Killers the best of the 90s must have been in my pocket. You’re a tool Havens- a child- a nothing- you aren’t even right in your attacks. And Shoot Em Up got such a bad review from the NY Times I can’t even tell you, and yes it broke even. I never said I don’t like critics either you reading deficient piece of filth- I said they no longer matter and they don’t. YOU never mattered. Neither you nor FilmJERK nor Orndorf writing for his audience of one matter. Call me any name you wish you mongoloid dancing chimpanzee but you do not matter.
Don’s leaving money on the table, Don’s leaving money on the table. Hahaha, he’s got no process. Manage it, baby.
Let me ask you this, Donald… which one of us keeps upping the vitriol with each response, and which one of us is remaining perfectly calm and reasoned?
Oh, and DietCock, if you’re going to give advice, like, say, don’t bring someone’s family in to the mix, make sure you’re giving it to the right person.
HAVENS The very idea that you would think you are perfectly calm and reasoned confirms that you are off your medications by a huge margin. Now go back to FilmChimp and write for your audience of your mommy and Brian. I checked the stats and http://www.ratemypoo.com gets more hits than your site. Pathetic – yet YOU and Orndorf get actual votes on Tomatoes. This makes you think you matter. Fucking Larf Mate.
You give people too little credit and you’re too paranoid, Don; everyone takes the RT score with a grain of salt now. You go there to read who you like, and if you don’t know who you like, you read what sounds interesting to you. And then you google the movie to see who else has written about it, and then you decide you’ve tasted it enough and you decide not to see it… just feeding your paranoia… you then you act cool and tell people you’ll see it cold with them.
You are right, Donald. FilmJerk doesn’t get that much traffic anymore. But I knew that years ago. I didn’t need one of the twelve credited producers of the biggest film of 2009 (calendar year only) to tell me that.
Donald, you can keep trying to push all the buttons you want. The only people who can get to me on any emotional level are the people who matter to me. My mom calling me a failure would sting. Don Murphy calling me a failure does not. My dad saying I was pathetic would make me reflect on the choices I’ve made in my life. Don Murphy calling me pathetic makes me chuckle.
What you got next, Donald?
He’ll make the list if it plays, right?
http://www.filmjerk.com/earlyreport/article.php?id_eol=777
Havens you don’t need me or mom or dad to tell you, you obviously tell yourself regularly. The private emails I got about you actually make me feel sad for you. Sorry I engaged you. {to correct your sad self, there are four credited producers and you can pick up the poster and see I am listed first and not because I am a swell guy} No more engaging, I hope you get the hope you need.
I don’t matter, at all, yet people feel compelled enough to write to you about me, and you felt compelled to email me privately.
What a strange contradiction.
No contradiction, you mistake attention for mattering. Rodents attract plenty of attention too.
Okay, Donnie. You win. It’s what’s important to you, my acquiescing to your clear superiority. You’ve beaten a mongoloid dancing chimpanzee in an internet argument. You’re the man now, dog.
Getting back on topic… Newton doesn’t have a leg to stand on, legally. He paid for and got what he was promised, unless he was also promised a favorable review as part of the package. That Gray and/or Stiles had the review stricken from the web site to protect a paid advertiser is a moral and ethical issue, not a legal one. Is it a fireable offense? I doubt whomever owns Variety this month really cares, as long as the paper remains profitable. There’s no room for ethics when it comes to profit margins.
Don, you’re worth, what, two babillion dollars? And being snarky at anonymous people in a blog is what you can think of to do with your time?
That’s either the most unambitious thing I’ve ever heard of, or the most unimaginative. I’m not sure which.
SAM – see, now that your word are in print you think your opinion is valid, that it has worth. BZZZZT it doesn’t.
Edward Havens is the guy’s name, he’s not an anonymous douche he is a proud, full fledged douche.
As far as what I do with my time, if I choose to remind someone that they ain’t what they think they are, that’s for me to decide. Now go have a shitty life.
Sam Stoddard I followed the link to your poorly designed website and now I need bleach for my eyes.
I like that if Don was any random guy off the street, DP would probably have banned him by now (especially if he still called himself Spam Dooley) but since he’s a rich and ‘powerful’ Hollywood insider who manages to not insult DP directly, he’s tolerated and occasionally coddled. Good times.
Damn, if I had realized making that remark was gonna get me pwned, I’d never have done it.
If you want to be pedantic (which is, apparently, what you do around here) any opinion is valid as long as it’s based on reasonable assumptions. This is different to having “value” (for a given meaning of “value”). So Sam’s opinion is valid, even if you think it’s worthless.
Just out of interest Don, is there anyone you DO like?
Sam you are likely pwned hourly don’t sweat it….
jeff I am not Spam Dooley, I am not rich, I am not powerful, I am noT Spock. Why do you interact with me when you have a public restroom to clean?
Foamy >/b> Most opinions are valueless on the net because most people don’t bother to figure out what they are talking about. And yes I like many people, although very few anonymous internet losers.
Don, what’s up with Real Steel? I like Jackman and Richard Matheson a lot, but I am not familiar with this particular story. Shawn Levy also isn’t the first director who comes to mind when I hear about a project like this. I’d love to hear more about it, like what the robots will be like, the effects, really anything you could share. Thanks.
Fair enough. Just chicken/egg wondering whether you like people because you find their opinions valuable, or whether you value their opinions because you like them.
(Discounting family relationships and amusement-value friends etc.)
Do you like me, Don? I may be anonymous and on the internet, but my mom says I’m not a loser.
I like you Don. You helped bring about a nice bonding moment between me and my son when we saw Double Dragon together.
Boy, ya go away for a day and all hell breaks loose…
Down Joe, down!
I should point out that neither the “$250k ad campaign shitstorm” or “high profile producer causing message boards to erupt” are entirely new on the interwebs.
In 2007, 11-year veteran Jeff Gerstmann was allegedly fired from his position as Editorial Director after giving a “6/10” review to a game which had just spent thousands of dollars on a campaign that
included redesigning the theme of the entire website. (For context, reviews are often snidely referred to as using a “7-9 scale”)
“jeff I am not Spam Dooley, I am not rich, I am not powerful…”
You’re either lying or you need a better agent (being first-listed producer on Trannies 2 and all – and I think we’ve confirmed that you didn’t make that movie because you thought it was an artistic statement).
Maybe Lori Golay screwed him over?
Lessons learned…
1. You don’t get to criticize someone unless you have created a popular blog, movie, etc. comparable to the person you’re criticizing.
2. If you have not created said comparably popular blog, movie, etc., DON’T link to it on this site or else you will get pwned (whatever that means).
palmtree not really- you don’t get to criticize someone unless you know whereof you speak. I mean YOU can criticize/babble but expect to get pwned.
And further, if you ARE going to link to your site, at least make it active and worth going to. donmurphy.net and donmurphy.net/board are a hundred times better designed and I don’t link to them.
Pwned is the internet equivalent of “In your face sucka”. Kind of what Havens was told every night by his parents before bedtime.
Then can you get Jim to turn off the flash sounds if you’re going to use popups for links on the home page?
The atmospheric effects start to grate about halfway through reading the first lawsuit.
Foamy Okay that’s a good suggestion I’ll ask him. How do you know Jim?
I don’t – I read the forum stickies. That’s presumably what they’re there for.
The fadeout for the main forum header works fine, just reuse that.
Wow, enlightened little forum you’ve created here, D.P. Lots of really nice people calling each other bitch and pig fucker. You really should post more photos of your kid on the site.
Does that make you the pot or the kettle, Vic?