KEVIN SMITH GOES FULL PALIN FOR RED STATE - Page 2

What about Quint? Or Rav over at AICN? It kinda seems like you're wilfully ignoring the buzz on the film by paintintg all the negativity so far as Smith-hating. And the other big problem with this whole "see for yourself" thing is that, to see the film in the near future, you'll have to directly buy into Smith's self-aggrandising spiel at a highly inflated ticket price. He's made RED STATE the film and RED STATE the release all about himself. It's not the critics and the buyers and the audience - once again, it's Smith who has inextricably linked the viewing of this film with the support of his retarded rants and grudges.

I'd direct people to Devin's piece over as BADASS as a companion piece to Dre's excellent column - both guys nail the larger issues here.

I think to arbitrarily decide that everyone who writes for CHUD, AICN, Collider or wherever else is a)a geek, and b)shapes their cinematic opinions according to their geekdom is pretty sweeping and dismissive.

Your attitude towards McWeeny's review also feels a little bit like the pot calling the kettle a nerd. He pontificates quite a bit, sure, but he does critique the movie in a comprehensive fashion. You're telling me your dismissal of his column is solely based upon its contents and not upon Moriarty's established persona? To me, the guy has every right to feel pissed off that his time as a journalist has been wasted.

Yes, well, it's kind of hard to argue against that cos I am indeed talking in sweeping generalisations. And Moriarty's air of pomposity does make it hard for me to swallow just about anything he says. I just find discussions about Smith in these kinds of places a bit too heated and overbearing for my tastes is all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 
 He pontificates quite a bit, sure, but he does critique the movie in a comprehensive fashion.

That's kinda the takeaway I had from reading his review. More of the piece is spent on the topic of Smith but what film criticism there is is incisive and articulate.

I usually like McWeeny's reviews, but that review felt a lot more like a review of Kevin Smith, the person, and worst of all, he brought up the similarities to his Masters of Horror episode that covered similar ground as Red State. It's easily the worst MOH ep, which is like being the worst fatal STD, so he lost me on that one.

I hated the McWeeny review, it spent far to much time going on about how he had done it all better.

double post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Savage 

I hated the McWeeny review, it spent far to much time going on about how he had done it all better.

Drew can be painfully melodramatic at times, to his detriment. The paragraphs pertaining to his MOH work did him no favors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Savage 

I hated the McWeeny review, it spent far to much time going on about how he had done it all better.

Yeah, that was almost embarrassing to read. I kept thinking he was going to turn that into a joke or something, but... nope.

I'm definitely no McWeeny fan, but I see the point he was trying to make with that. He wasn't saying his movie was better; in fact he said up front that he knows it has flaws. (Full disclosure: I have not seen Pro-Life. I have however seen Cigarette Burns which I thought was pretty awful.) His point was a pre-emptive strike on the fanboys who like to hit critics with the tired volley "You're just jealous because you wish you made movies instead of just writing about them, hurr durr." And McWeeny was like, "Well, yeah, I have. With John Carpenter, no less. So I have nothing to be jealous of. And we did it way cheaper and without spending a year sucking our own dicks" or however he put it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

I'm definitely no McWeeny fan, but I see the point he was trying to make with that. He wasn't saying his movie was better; in fact he said up front that he knows it has flaws. (Full disclosure: I have not seen Pro-Life. I have however seen Cigarette Burns which I thought was pretty awful.) His point was a pre-emptive strike on the fanboys who like to hit critics with the tired volley "You're just jealous because you wish you made movies instead of just writing about them, hurr durr." And McWeeny was like, "Well, yeah, I have. With John Carpenter, no less. So I have nothing to be jealous of. And we did it way cheaper and without spending a year sucking our own dicks" or however he put it.

Yeah, but Martin, why even address the argument?  And in such a way that you come off as a pompous douche? It's a specious argument that has little merit in a serious discussion, and by addressing it, all McWeeny did was elevate the argument and lower his standing.

And by-the-by, if you think his column was embarrassing, you should read the comments.  He's even worse there.

Because "jealousy over Kevin's cool life" is literally the only comeback the View Askew Innsmouth types have left. Maybe McWeeny jumped the gun, but I think he was pretty much looking to head off the inevitable response so that his inbox wasn't full of such crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

View Askew Innsmouth

haha awesome.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Because "jealousy over Kevin's cool life" is literally the only comeback the View Askew Innsmouth types have left. Maybe McWeeny jumped the gun, but I think he was pretty much looking to head off the inevitable response so that his inbox wasn't full of such crap.

And to be fair, I understand McWeeny's point and why he brought it up. I just think he did it poorly and it ended up having the opposite effect almost, at least to me. Even more so with the way he ended the piece with the equivalent of a "I'm leaving this forum for good!" post. I mean, will he REALLY never write about Smith in any capacity again? I highly doubt it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

Because "jealousy over Kevin's cool life" is literally the only comeback the View Askew Innsmouth types have left. Maybe McWeeny jumped the gun, but I think he was pretty much looking to head off the inevitable response so that his inbox wasn't full of such crap.

I understand why he did it, but I think it's a dumb thing to do.  Journalists of all types get their in-boxes filled with noxious shit all the time and the truly professional ones don't dignify bullshit with a response.  What he did was unprofessional and ineffective since the emails came anyway.  It just smacks of knee-jerk reactionism and it's the kind of stuff you see on blogs and message boards, and not from professionals.

And nice Lovecraft reference, by the by.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Devildoubt 

I understand why he did it, but I think it's a dumb thing to do.  Journalists of all types get their in-boxes filled with noxious shit all the time and the truly professional ones don't dignify bullshit with a response.  What he did was unprofessional and ineffective since the emails came anyway.  It just smacks of knee-jerk reactionism and it's the kind of stuff you see on blogs and message boards, and not from professionals.

Exactly. It was unnecessary, and worse, it distracted from his review. I usually enjoy McWeeny, but sometimes he comes off as a slightly more stable version of RathBandu with his self-righteous bluster.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

(Full disclosure: I have not seen Pro-Life. I have however seen Cigarette Burns which I thought was pretty awful.) 

Hah, Cigarette Burns is so much better than Pro Life. I mean, it's not good, but Pro Life is literally one of the worst things I've seen. It's rare you see something that really and truly spits contempt in your face the way Pro Life does. If Red State was anywhere near that quality, any self promotion shenanigans would have been completely overshadowed by the turd stank emanating from the Park City screen. 

Kevin Smith is fascinating to me. I think it's fair to say I don't really like any of his movies, and in fact find a lot of them pretty grating. Most of his dialogue doesn't strike me as clever, just tin-eared and unnatural, and it's not helped by the subpar actors he generally employs (Affleck has a distinct ability with it though). But as a cultural figure for the modern internet age, I think he's aces. He's consistently behaved like a self-obsessed fanboy pulled from the center of a movie message board, and he demonstrates most of the things I like and dislike about movie nerds. Sometimes he's smart and funny, and sometimes he takes himself too seriously and gets furious over something petty. So while I don't feel any particular need to see Cop Out, I think he's exactly the kind of filmmaker we deserve, and I hope he sticks around for another thirty years, creating non-art that everyone has to react to. In fact, it's actually kind of perfect that so many people hate him so much. Self loathing is, after all, one of our core principles, especially with a heavy gravy of Star Wars poured over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arjen Rudd 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin Blank 

(Full disclosure: I have not seen Pro-Life. I have however seen Cigarette Burns which I thought was pretty awful.) 

 

Hah, Cigarette Burns is so much better than Pro Life. I mean, it's not good, but Pro Life is literally one of the worst things I've seen. It's rare you see something that really and truly spits contempt in your face the way Pro Life does. If Red State was anywhere near that quality, any self promotion shenanigans would have been completely overshadowed by the turd stank emanating from the Park City screen. 

 

Kevin Smith is fascinating to me. I think it's fair to say I don't really like any of his movies, and in fact find a lot of them pretty grating. Most of his dialogue doesn't strike me as clever, just tin-eared and unnatural, and it's not helped by the subpar actors he generally employs (Affleck has a distinct ability with it though). But as a cultural figure for the modern internet age, I think he's aces. He's consistently behaved like a self-obsessed fanboy pulled from the center of a movie message board, and he demonstrates most of the things I like and dislike about movie nerds. Sometimes he's smart and funny, and sometimes he takes himself too seriously and gets furious over something petty. So while I don't feel any particular need to see Cop Out, I think he's exactly the kind of filmmaker we deserve, and I hope he sticks around for another thirty years, creating non-art that everyone has to react to. In fact, it's actually kind of perfect that so many people hate him so much. Self loathing is, after all, one of our core principles, especially with a heavy gravy of Star Wars poured over it.

Jesus Arjen, speaking of self loathing, hows yours coming along?

The thing is McWeeny can be just as bad as Smith and often is.  After all this is the guy who created the whole Moraity persona so he could write a review for his own script.  And the same guy who went on about illegal downloading was wrong while boasting about doing it in ACIN own chat rooms.

Dude has no moral ground to stand on.

Here is some video of the "big event". And yeah it's amazing how arrogant he comes across.

http://thefilmstage.com/2011/01/24/kevin-smith-talks-red-state-self-distribution-model-more-sundance-2011-full-video/

After watching the full video of Smith's Sundance speech, this whole thing strikes me as really simple.  He wants more money.  He's realized he has a large fanbase that will eat up anything he pukes up, so instead of selling the movie and taking his normal percentage, he's direct selling, because (as he admits) he thinks he can make a lot more money that way.  Which is fine, whatever.  The problem is, he's marketing this decision as a beacon of indie light shining against the greedy Hollywood Machine.  Which is complete bullshit, because NO indie can do what he's doing without building up the giant fanbase and reputation (and MONEY) through the Hollywood Machine for 17 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan C.B. 

After watching the full video of Smith's Sundance speech, this whole thing strikes me as really simple.  He wants more money.  He's realized he has a large fanbase that will eat up anything he pukes up, so instead of selling the movie and taking his normal percentage, he's direct selling, because (as he admits) he thinks he can make a lot more money that way.  Which is fine, whatever.  The problem is, he's marketing this decision as a beacon of indie light shining against the greedy Hollywood Machine.  Which is complete bullshit, because NO indie can do what he's doing without building up the giant fanbase and reputation (and MONEY) through the Hollywood Machine for 17 years.

Yeah I agree. I don't fault him for the actual business model because ya know what? He is right. He has a a rabid smallish fan base and really why not cut out the middle men and take it all yourself? The problem is the way he presented it all. It's obvious this whole things was to do 2 things.

1.Obviously to stir up shit and get the plan out there. Can't even really fault him for that either even though he wasted some people's valuable time im sure.

2.This is the one I have a problem with. He clearly wanted to throw it in the studio's faces. "Fuck you big business I don't need you!". He comes off like a tantruming child. And of course your right Ryan. The only reason he can pull off what he is doing is because he worked within the studio system for 17 years building a fanbase.