Smoking...Part II
The smoking thread is easily the most populated we’ve ever had, and the software’s getting rather pokey digesting each added comment (I’m sure you’ve noticed).
Use the comments for this entry to continue the debate. I’m closing comments in the other one so that the whole site doesn’t bog down.
Update: I just received the following email from my assistant.
“The smoking thread is easily the most populated we’ve ever had…”
Wow. That is so great Craig - the most poopulatd thread you EVER had - how ever did you come up with the idea?
If I’m not mistaken, you promised me a mention in the article…and yet, none exists.
Hmmmm. I see how you are.
THANK YOU, Jacq. Lesko, who definitely gave me the idea to write about this. You are my everything, in spite of the word “poopulatd.” It was an excellent topic to suggest, and I appreciate it.
Poopulatd?
Trey,
“I know plenty of people who can’t tell the difference and rather than assume you’re one of those types, I thought I’d ask.”
Maybe the tone got lost, then. The way you asked seem to presume a lot.
Now go thump your bible somewhere else
(BIG FAT WINKY, SMILEY FACE GOES HERE!!!!!)
I don’t know whether anyone’s brought this up, but here is a vintage “Flintstones” commercial for Winston cigarettes… just to remind us all how it used to be.
Ted,
“Meaning: a rating that has the best chance of being booked into the greatest number of auditoriums by exhibitors, and so the best chance of generating the most revenue for the exhibitor and the filmmaker.”
I think this goes without saying. I also thought it went without saying that, as a rule, when you make a movie that contains disturbing or adult imagery, you tend not to be thinking, “Gee, how can I get the most number of kids in to see this?” You know going in that just by your subject matter, your audience is limited. That doesn’t really have anything to do with the MPAA.
“And that’s the basis for the real argument against the MPAA ratings system: not the censorship stuff, that’s both too easy, and too easily refuted; and its such an unoriginal argument, it’s just noise at this point.”
And yet, it’s not. Your point seems to be that without the MPAA, Hostel would be free to find a new audience among theater going 11 year olds.
Not everyone goes into it trying to reach the largest audience there is, just the largest audience possible. There’s an essential difference there.
When the MPAA slaps an NC-17 rating on a movie that could just as easily get an R, they’re making a decision that has direct ramifications on the ability of that film to reach its audience (and yes, I know that means reaching that audience’s money, thanks.) They know that that rating means many papers won’t advertise it, and that many theaters won’t book it.
Sorry if that’s unoriginal, but it sure as hell isn’t easily refutable.
Craig
“Are you married?”
How, exactly, is this A) relevent, and B) any of your business?
“I enjoyed your version of that Cormac story. His is different.”
That’s lovely. The only part I left out - because it seemed irrelevant - is there was a third guy there, who introduced himself, and said he used to enjoy my posts on WA. I thanked him, laughed, and said, “Did we ever duke it out?” And he laughed and said “no.”
If Cormac says something that deviates wildly from what I wrote earlier or that addendum, he’s a flat out liar. And you know what? He’s not the coward, because he’s not dancing around this page making sly insinuations.
You want to call me an asshole, call me an asshole. You want to call me a hack, call me a hack. You want to call me a liar, call me a liar. But this latest thing, where you seem deadset on getting genuinely personal is beneath you.
I don’t know you outside of this forum, Craig. We don’t move in the same circles personally or professionally. Hell, the odds of the two of us ever even being up for the same job are astronomical. To me, you are words on a screen, and I expect to be no more to you.
It would never occur to me to start posting off topic comments about things I know or have heard about people here, and it would never occur to me to pry into people’s personal lives.
I know all sorts of stuff about all sorts of people in this business. It would never in a million years occur to me to even hint at it here, let alone to post anything, no matter how strongly I felt someone was being a jag-off. I only posted the Wibberly story because it’s the second time you pussy footed around the idea that you know something revealing about Olson. Blech.
You want to go that route, you go it alone. I say this not because I have anything to hide, or because I think you - or anyone else here - may have something on me. You don’t. You couldn’t. There’s nothing to know or have. That sort of behavior is beneath contempt.
I have attacked many of your posts here and elsewhere with vigor and energy and even, dare I say, a smattering of wit from time to time. I don’t agree with a lot of what you say online. I don’t like a lot of the attitudes you exhibit. When you throw down, I throw back, and that’s where it ends for me. If we were boxers, I’d hit you a lot (and/or get hit), then go home and not think about it. But you seem to take this shit very personally.
Frankly, I feel creepy that you succeeded in pushing me to post that story, because it wasn’t either of the Wibberly’s (Wibberlys? Wibberli?) who posted the comment, and regardless of what I thought about their behavior, a public forum is not the place for such discussions. So chalk one up for yourself, cos you got me to cross a line I find objectionable.
By the way, if someone here posted a threat of violence against someone else, you’re probably duty-bound to let that person know.
I’ve always maintained, and I still maintain, that every movie should be rated R.
Johnny:
No. That would be an incredibly stupid thing for anyone to say.
Hey, let me ask you something:
Do you know that the MPAA is a trade organization that acts as a political lobbying group on behalf of the major studios and the U.S. theatrical, home video and television industries?
Now, why do you suppose a trade organization that acts in the poltical interests of the motion picture industry would create and administer a voluntary, self-regulated national ratings system?
And why might it be of interest to such a trade organization to demonstrate that its voluntary, self-regulated national ratings system was reflective of changes in local community standards, contrary to criticisms leveled at Hollywood by special interest groups, other political lobbyist groups, and pretty much every politician, regardless of party affiliation, during an election year?
Hm … that’s a head-scratcher, innit?
-
I don’t know that Ted’s argument leads directly to the statement Olson makes…
“…it went without saying that, as a rule, when you make a movie that contains disturbing or adult imagery… You know going in that just by your subject matter, your audience is limited.”
…but I like that someone finally said that. Because doing subject matter that could be NC-17 or R seems to come with certain risks. Risks that are dealt with in calculated ways by writers, directors and producers.
So, if you know the risks, it can’t be completely arbitrary on the part of the MPAA, right? You might not like the guidelines, but you sure as heck know - in a general sense - what they are. Right?
And if, “G is a near-death kiss… (unless: Pixar),” what is Pixar doing right? Isn’t that a case where he exhibitor doesn’t determine what is seen? In a sense, Pixar proved that the marketplace of ideas is still self-regulated. If you put good enough stories up on the screen, people will come in droves.
Pixar is a brand. They can afford it because people see a poster saying “Pixar” and decide they will see it without regards to the rating.
Other companies don’t have the same luxury, so to them the G rating comes as a disadvantage.
S.A.
But there was a time when Pixar wasn’t a bankable brand. And they relied on the trump card that every filmmaker has in his hand - a great story. And they built their brand around that.
I think I’m coming to believe that people will bitch and moan about the ratings their film gets and say it’s hampered their commercial viablity - but they knew going in what the subject matter would probably bring, like Josh pointed out.
This is a screenwriters forum. At the end of the day, it seems like the discussion should come back around to what can screenwriters do to render the MPAA irrelevant. We can write great stories. That’s it.
Pixar proved that model works.
It’s Wibberley, Olsen.
Trey,
“So, if you know the risks, it can’t be completely arbitrary on the part of the MPAA, right? You might not like the guidelines, but you sure as heck know - in a general sense - what they are. Right?”
Keyword being GENERAL.
The difference between an R rating and an NC-17 is, in most cases, arbitrary. There are R rated movies with more explicit sex than some NC-17s, and the same with violence as well. You’re not dealing with hard, clear guidelines.
The line between R and NC-17 is, mostly fuzzy and impossible to predict. If I make a kids film, I’m not gonna have someone running around naked screaming “fuck!” I know what those lines are. But if I’m making an R rated movies for an adult audience, I have no way of knowing whether or not the MPAA is going to make the decision that my movie falls on the wrong side of that line. End result is a chilling effect. If I want to make a movie that pushes boundaries, I know my audience is going to be smaller than if I’m making something for mass consumption. No problem. But the NC-17 threat creates a chilling effect. It’s much safer for me not to deal with material that someone might arbitrary choose is too much for an R.
“At the end of the day, it seems like the discussion should come back around to what can screenwriters do to render the MPAA irrelevant. We can write great stories. That’s it.”
If that were any kind of solution, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You write a great story, and the MPAA decides it needs an NC-17, it’s over.
Trey,
“So, if you know the risks, it can’t be completely arbitrary on the part of the MPAA, right? You might not like the guidelines, but you sure as heck know - in a general sense - what they are. Right?”
Keyword being GENERAL.
The difference between an R rating and an NC-17 is, in most cases, arbitrary. There are R rated movies with more explicit sex than some NC-17s, and the same with violence as well. You’re not dealing with hard, clear guidelines.
The line between R and NC-17 is, mostly fuzzy and impossible to predict. If I make a kids film, I’m not gonna have someone running around naked screaming “fuck!” I know what those lines are. But if I’m making an R rated movies for an adult audience, I have no way of knowing whether or not the MPAA is going to make the decision that my movie falls on the wrong side of that line. End result is a chilling effect. If I want to make a movie that pushes boundaries, I know my audience is going to be smaller than if I’m making something for mass consumption. No problem. But the NC-17 threat creates a chilling effect. It’s much safer for me not to deal with material that someone might arbitrary choose is too much for an R.
“At the end of the day, it seems like the discussion should come back around to what can screenwriters do to render the MPAA irrelevant. We can write great stories. That’s it.”
If that were any kind of solution, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You write a great story, and the MPAA decides it needs an NC-17, it’s over.
“So, if you know the risks, it can’t be completely arbitrary on the part of the MPAA, right? You might not like the guidelines, but you sure as heck know - in a general sense - what they are. Right?”
That’s the kicker, though. The MPAA ratings board isn’t consistent, won’t publish specific rules about what does or does not constitute an R-rating. Check out “This Film is Not Yet Rated.” It’s a fascinating look into the murky process of the ratings system in this country, with commentaries from many indie filmmakers who’ve gotten beaten with the NC-17 stick, including John Waters and Kimberly Peirce, the woman who directed “Boys Don’t Cry,” and whose film initially received an NC-17 from the board.
And Josh, although his (and/or Craig’s unhealthy preoccupation with you is somewhat troublesome), I wouldn’t worry too much about an elevator beatdown rematch with Cormac Wibberly. Besides the fact that you’re what, like 6’11 and half-Viking, you’ve got far more worrisome stalkers still out there, like that cross-dressing ex-magician internet writing guru from Burbank, nay?
it really is worth reading twice people.
Smoking is bad, m’kay?
Ted –
No.
Don’t know.
Huh?
Truth be told…
You lost me at hello.
Or was it hey?
I can order a kick ass magarita, though !
Lemme give it a think… Unless you want to give us the “For Dummies” version?
Yeah, what difference does it make, in terms of the ideas being discussed here, who’s married or not married, who’s got kids or who doesn’t, who says they love jesus and who’s honest enough to say they don’t buy that?
I mean, what does that serve?
I’ve also met people who I’ve tangled with online (I’ve met the infamous Kevin, more than once) and I’m civil and fun as all get out … and generally stay that way until given a reason not to be … so how is that story of bumping into someone one didn’t really know right up there with Paris Hilton’s “mystery” ailment that got her sprung from jail?
I don’t get it.
Seems to me Brother Olson has made his case pretty clear that the MPAA is fucked up and needs to change … I’m not sure I get the argument for hte other side, except that “I’m afraid my kids will see it and be subjected to dark influences” which, as has been stated, will happen anyway either on TV, sneaking in the cinemas or watching the DVD at a friends house or just hearing and seeing it at the playground.
So the folks that get hosed are the filmmakers, yet the result for the kids is the same … I mean, worse things are featured on television, as I’ve mentioned.
So. There it is.
Olson:
On the marriage thing, I was just curious. It’s not relevant, nor is it my business. I was honestly just wondering…okay, wondering in the service of a theory, but still, just wondering. You’re well within your right to not answer.
I don’t know if you’re a hack or a liar or an asshole. At least, not for sure.
That seems fair.
Pry? Pry? No. No prying here. I’ve never even googled you!
Well, Mazin doesn’t know anything revealing about Olson, but Mazin thinks that the representation-of-Olson-through-words-on-a-screen-in-here is probably just a pose.
It’s an illuminating consideration.
I have nothing “on” you. Just my opinion. An opinion, I should add, that has been earned.
::golf clap::
Huh? So……….I allude to a story, you write a long screed about how fucked up that is, but I’m the one who takes stuff personally, and you’re the strong, dispassionate one whose response “ends there”?
An interesting viewpoint that I do not share.
I suspect we’re both humans who have feelings an emotional responses to words and such…and it’s quite possible that your responses are more volatile than mine.
Even money on that one.
Sorry you feel creepy. Not my intention.
It wasn’t what I’d call a realistic threat. More of the “that’s the kind of thing that gets you punched” sort of comment…but your advice is probably well-taken.
Craig,
“I don’t know if you’re a hack or a liar or an asshole. At least, not for sure.”
Doesn’t matter. Those are conclusions you can reach based on what I put out into the world. Asshole’s your safest bet.
Anything you put out publicly is fair game. I think what you say makes you an asshole, I get to say so (and vice versa.) What I DON’T get to post here is, “Last week, Mazin got so drunk at a friend’s party that they had to call the cops,” or “I hear Mazin likes to frolic with barnyard animals,” (even if that WOULD fit into a theory I have…)
Maye’s kids were off limits, for instance, until she started talking about beating them here.
What your pal told you about me is not relevant, and it’s so far off limits, it’s ridiculous. Don’t like my words? Attack ‘em. Don’t like my work? Attack it. I’ll fire back, but you’ll never hear me cry foul. Post obnoxious rumors about me, and I’ll say something.
“Pry? Pry? No. No prying here”
And yet: “Are you married?”
“I have nothing “on” you. “
No shit. There’s nothing to have. Yet, earlier, you sarkily hinted at having some nefarious story that will prove I’m a big puss offline, something that would rip the lid off the whole illusion. Guess what? I AM a big puss offline. And on. Except when some asshole pisses me off.
And I don’t have anywhere near as many discussions like this offline because who the hell does? I don’t belong to a debate society, and I don’t spend a great deal of time socializing (or working with) people whose worldviews bug me as much as, say, yours. But this is one of the functions of the internet. It allows people who are radically different in most ways to butt heads over ideas.
See, in the real world, the first step is “I like you.” Then, once someone’s in your living room, you discuss ideas. On the internet, you skip the first part.
But offline, you tend to realize you have nothing in common with someone, or don’t like them, and you move on. No harm, no foul. Here, everything’s open for discussion with the entire hive.
My favorite is when some sensitive soul can’t take it and wants to meet so they can tell you to your face what a butthead you are, or try to kick your ass. Shit, I have a hard enough time making sure I keep up with all my actual friends and making all the meetings I need to go to without having to squeeze in drinks with some hostile schmuck I don’t even like in the first place.
“I allude to a story, you write a long screed about how fucked up that is, but I’m the one who takes stuff personally, and you’re the strong, dispassionate one whose response “ends there”?”
You allude to a story - a lie - someone told you about me that you think makes me look bad, having nothing whatsoever to do with any of this stuff, and in an attempt to just defame me. You weren’t satisfied with your ability to do it with just words and wit, so you brought in what you thought was bigger ammo.
Call me an asshole, and I fire back and it’s over. Allude to some secret personal info you have on me in some kind of attempt to put me down or shut me up, and yeah, fucker, I take it personally. Because it IS personal. Don’t be a weasel. You did what you did and I called you on it.
“I suspect we’re both humans who have feelings an emotional responses to words and such…and it’s quite possible that your responses are more volatile than mine.”
And yet, I’ve never once pulled the gag you did (for the second time, to boot). I’ve never once tried to beat you down with something other than the ideas you present here.
From time to time, I have no doubt I’ve wondered all sorts of stuff about your personal life, and what makes someone like you someone like you, but you know what? It’s not even remotely my business. If you want to start a personal relationship with me, send me an e-mail. I have psychotically high standards for friends, though, so don’t be put out if you don’t make the cut.
“Well, Mazin doesn’t know anything revealing about Olson, but Mazin thinks that the representation-of-Olson-through-words-on-a-screen-in-here is probably just a pose”
Well let me save you some time and energy. It is. And the representation of Mazin as words on a screen in here is just a pose. And the same is true of Ted, and Maye, and Joshua and Kevin and every other living, breathing human being who communicates with other living, breathing human beings on the internet.
How much of a pose is a different question, and one I leave to small minds to struggle with. I don’t give a shit. I don’t give a shit if you’re really a struggling, sensitive artist with a powerful message you’re trying to communicate to the world, who loves writers and who cares mightily about the rights of the individual. The person you are HERE is the only thing that matters, regardless of how far it is from your actual persona.
Notice how I continue to talk to Maye like she’s a real person, even though I know she isn’t? That’s cos it doesn’t matter. Her ideas and mine are bouncing off each other here, and that’s all it’s about.
You posted some sentiments that I feel strongly are antithetical to the creation of an important and vital art form. If you don’t want people to respond negatively to your beliefs, don’t broadcast ‘em.
“Well, Mazin doesn’t know anything revealing about Olson, but Mazin thinks that the representation-of-Olson-through-words-on-a-screen-in-here is probably just a pose”
We’re all posing on the internet. This is especially true for writers, I think.
However, I have it on highest authority that Josh once got attacked by a Rottweiler while walking down the sidewalk — and, rather than scramble onto the hood of the nearest car, screaming like a puss — he bit it back. Right in the neck. Then he sat on it. And then he smoked a cigarette. In front of Maye’s surly teenage boys. And then Cormac Wibberly finally came out of the house and threatened to sue him for animal rights abuse.
Or so I heard…
PS - The above post has been rated NC-17 by the MPAA parental advisory board for scenes of graphic posturing. And brief hearsay…
We’ve got a live one !
Anyone is free to criticize my opinions in here, as long as they “keep the tone civil.” Absolutely, Josh. Keep it coming.
I wasn’t trying to put you down or shut you up. I can’t shut you up. Well…I could in here, but I don’t. I think, however, what I was trying to do was let you know that I don’t take you seriously.
But if you prefer the straight-forward approach, and in order to avoid undeserved charges of weaselness…
…Hey, Josh Olson! I don’t take you seriously.
At least, not anymore. I did.
You should probably take that personally, insofar as you should take anything personally that’s about your person that’s based on stuff you write that is a pose that is unrelated by some amount to your person.
I’ll leave that math to you.
And no, I don’t want to start a personal relationship with you, even though my standards for friendship aren’t psychotically high, but probably pretty normal.
Shit, why would anyone want to start a personal relationship with someone who advertises themselves as having psychotically high standards, as if your friendship were tantamount to admission to West Point or something?
Josh Olson…the Simon Cowell of being friends with Josh Olson!
On the other hand, do you have psychotically high standards for friendship, or is just JoshBot that has psychotically high standards. RealJosh might be friends with anyone who wanders within ten feet.
It’s all shrugworthy.
Josh,
Do you see yourself as antagonistic when you’re on message boards? It seems to me, in my limited on-line exposure to you (which is here and WA), you come off as someone who likes to fight with people. (i’ve also heard that you get into it with people on other boards)
I believe you’ve built a reputation, in this small hollywood chat circle, as an internet bad boy—bully—whatever. I think you, specifically, are in a tight spot when it comes to boundaries (pertaining to online debates—fights—brawls, whatever) because you’ve been in so many scraps that you have a target on your back.
Craig is by no means an internet nice guy. In fact he has a very nasty streak. But he doesn’t lash out at people who aren’t interested in fighting. You, on the other hand, seem to be less nasty but much more inclined to fuck with people who have no interest in fighting. At least that’s what I have seen.
I’m not saying that Craig should be allowed to post whatever he wants about you, but I am saying that you beg for it. You battle with the guy (and all-comers) non-stop, then say “wait, that’s not appropiate.”
Josh -
Remember that time I said hi to you at Laser Blazer and you said hi to me? That was freaky.
“You, on the other hand, seem to be less nasty but much more inclined to fuck with people who have no interest in fighting.”
The man can defend himself but let me say this… I’ve never seen Olson throw the first punch. Ever! He may punch back louder, harder and with more cussing, but never unprovoked.
It’s called the gunslinger syndrome…
Craig,
“…Hey, Josh Olson! I don’t take you seriously.
At least, not anymore. I did.”
I think I lost track around the fifty third time you said that. If it helps, I’ve never taken you seriously at all.
Malcolm,
I had the distinct honor of writing a script with Harlan Ellison last year. Both he and his lovely wife Susan will verify this - when we sat at his table going over pages, the words “cocksucker” and “motherfucker” were hurled with more abandon (and in larger quantity) than on an entire season of Deadwood. “Where did you learn to write?” would sometimes be hollered, in between bouts of “I’ll kill you!” It was also the first time I heard the phrase, “You’re not an Academy Award nominee. You’re an Academy Award loser!”
Harlan was then, and is now, one of the best friends I’ve ever had in this world. He’d say the same about me.
Some people enjoy conflict. What can I say?
As for the assertion that I go after people who don’t have an interest in fighting, I would say that it’s usually people who DO have an interest in making snide, obnoxious comments. Maye’s snipe about “you and your friend Viggo” was a lovely example.
To be honest, I prefer someone who’ll just say “fuck you” than people who hide behind plausible deniability and phony politeness. I don’t respond well to snarky craven attacks, and I don’t respond well to passive aggressiveness.
Based SOLELY on his behavior on these boards, I don’t trust Craig. He acts like someone with an agenda that he wants to keep hidden. He defends his position up to a point, but spends a lot of time covering his tracks and ducking and weaving and refusing to take responsibility for what he does here.
No idea what he’s like as a person, and until such time as I have to care, I don’t.
I’d like to make two last comments before at least trying to close this diversion - Craig’s the one who made this about me with his sarky attempt to once again wave his friend’s lie in my face. And second, gee, could we maybe get back to arguing over the MPAA instead of why my dick is so much bigger than his?
John,
I wish I had a clever response…. but thanks for the chuckle.
(Shouldn’t a web page run by a guy who writes comedies be…. I dunno…. funny sometimes?)
Josh:
I get paid to be funny.
This, I do for free.
Ronnie Pudding:
That woulud only be surprising to someone whose actually read my posts. For anyone going soley by Olson’s divorced-from-reality characterization of me, not suprising at all.
But, perhaps I judge too quickly.
Please, cite one quote from any of my posts (not anything that Olson has made up and assigned to me, something that I actually wrote) in this discussion that supports your perception of my position as that of a “paid employee participating in a commercial endeavor.”
Good luck.
-
Craig,
“Please, cite one quote from any of my posts (not anything that Olson has made up and assigned to me, something that I actually wrote) in this discussion that supports your perception of my position as that of a “studio employee participating in a commercial endeavor.”
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! Mr. Kotter!
I have no doubt that the the estimable Mr. Pudding will be able to pluck any number of examples, but as I am chained to the laptop tonight and have nowhere else to be, let me take the first shot.
From your initial post:
“I do know that every time I’ve gone in to recut a scene in order to avoid an R rating, I did so not under the threat of censorship, but out of a personal concern for my own bottom line. In other words…greed. I wanted a PG-13 so that the film would be seen by a wider audience, and I made the personal choice to sacrifice some moments in order to get that rating.”
This is spin, plain and simple. Ted does it, too. The two of you have this notion - I have to assume you believe it - that if one were to be a true artist in this medium, one would have no concern whatsoever for whether or not one’s work found an audience, or with being able to work again, or with delivering on the promise you made to your financiers. Only someone with no grasp of the situation could believe that.
So if someone makes a movie and wants it to reach the widest audience possible, and wants one’s financiers to recoup, one is greedy. That is one way to look at it, I suppose, but it’s a pretty Orwellian perception.
I do not imagine that the success of a Scary Movie depends on the entire film being one unified vision, that takes a theme and builds on it piece by piece until it delivers a cohesive whole. Them fuckers have to be as funny as possible, and the loss of one joke isn’t going to be the end of the world (I do not look down my nose at that. I can crack you the fuck up at a party, but I cannot write professional level comedy). It might cause the gnashing of teeth, but it generally won’t destroy the entire thing.
Cut my stairway scene and you gut my movie. Force the movie into one tenth as many theaters with almost no advertising, and you dissuade studios from making riskier, more adult films that don’t have to appeal to the broadest possible audience.
Bill O’Reilly would call that greed. Someone who perceives the making of films as strictly the making and marketing of commercial product would call that greed. To someone for whom this is a viable form of creative, artistic expression, that’s not greed. It’s a biological imperative.
When a repressive government censors an author’s book, they do not remove his right to create it, only to offer it to the world. Which means - by your logic - there really is no such thing as censorship. Up is down. Good is bad. Right is wrong.
When you say things like that statement I cited, Craig, you sound EXACTLY like the thing you swear you’re not.
Okay. That was odd. I could have sworn that last post was from Craig. It was from Ted.
And I have to vanish for a while, so I’ll take a crack at it again, later.
Josh……..
…..look closer………….
Hey, just so’s you know…
…I do write stuff other than spoof films. Some of it’s actually (gasp) dramatic.
My perspective is a bit broader on this topic than you might otherwise think. Not everything I write gets made.
Ted –
Headscratchin’ done. Here I go…
Firstly, of course I know the MPAA is made up of and represents the interests of the major studios. The term ‘trade organization’ confused me for a moment – it’s been a long day, let’s move on…
So, why a voluntary, self-regulated rating system? My best guess – to get rid of that pesky green sheet, replace the production code, and avoid government imposed regulations, i.e. to keep control over the evaluation process of their movies.
40 years later:
Election year, election year… scratch, scratch.
AH!
New powers to be… MPAA members worried… want to show their moral standards match the public’s… keep control of evaluation process of their movies.
Bam ! - Persuasive and glamorized smoking rated “R”.
How’d I do-?
Josh:
Really? That’s what my point seems to be to you? Here’s the very first sentence I wrote in my first post in this discussion:
Kind of completely the opposite of the “point” you pulled out of your ass and claimed was mine, isn’t it?
It makes no difference to the exhibitors. They don’t give a shit about the size of the audience the filmmaker wants to reach — they are going to choose movies based on which ones they believe will generate the greatest amount of ticket and concession revenue.
Do you really not understand that the traditional distribution system is made up of exhibitors that aren’t in business in order to ensure public access to films, but in order to make as large a profit as possible?
That it’s the commercial viability of a movie, as perceived by the exhibitors, that determines the numbers of screens on which any movie will play, and it’s the number of screens on which a movie plays that actually determines the lagest possible audience it can reach?
Do you really imagine that if a movie that would have received an NC-17 rating instead received an R rating, it would magically ensure that it would get booked in theaters and advertised so it can be found by even the audience that wants to see it?
As long as filmmakers are dependent on the traditional commercial distribution network, movies will reach audiences based on commercial reasons — which is why I keep saying: the way to make the MPAA irrelevant is to develop an alternative film distribution network. Maybe a combination of film festivals, museums and independent speciality houses. Forget about the widest possible release; bring back the rolling release, which minimizes print costs and lowers marketing costs by allowing for targeted advertising in stages, with revenue generated by early exhibitions being channelled back into advertising for future exhibitions.
But, I know: that’s just not revolutionary enough for a filmmaker of your caliber. No, far better to rail impotently against an entrenched system that, even if the NC-17 rating were abolished, and any movie that did not receive a G, PG or PG-13 rating got an R rating, would still mean your movies were subject to markt forces and the demand by exhibitors for the most commercial movies possible.
(By the way — did you know that the original MPAA rating system had only three ratings? G, for content suitable for General audiences of all ages; M for content suitable for Mature audiences of all ages; and R for content suitable for audiences over 16 and minors under 16 accompanied by a parent or guardian? And that any movie that did not receive a “G” or “M” rating would get an “R” rating? And that the “X - Adults Only” rating was created at the request of exhibitors?
No, of course you don’t. Becuase that would end your perfect record of taking extreme positions on issues without actually knowing a goddamn thing about them).
-
Ted,
“It makes no difference to the exhibitors. They don’t give a shit about the size of the audience the filmmaker wants to reach — they are going to choose movies based on which ones they believe will generate the greatest amount of ticket and concession revenue.”
Huh. So the reason the Sunset 5 is showing Paris Je T’aime right now is cos they couldn’t get the Pirates booking. Silly fuckin’ me.
“Do you really imagine that if a movie that would have received an NC-17 rating instead received an R rating, it would magically ensure that it would get booked in theaters and advertised so it can be found by even the audience that wants to see it?”
Yes, Ted. That’s exactly what I imagine. That’s why I was so shocked that when my no-budget horror film got rated R, it wasn’t immediately booked at the Chinese. Thanks for clarifying. Now it all makes sense.
But seriously, this is such a bizarre rhetorical game you’re playing. Reverse the position of the other person, then explain why they’re an idiot for taking it. When they didn’t.
An NC-17 rating radically limits the number of theaters that will show your movie, and the number of media outlets that will advertise it. That’s an inarguable fact. However, it does not mean that getting an R rating means you’ll automatically get theatrical distribution and unlimited advertising. I’m not sure how pointing out such a strange and obvious fact relates to this discussion at all, let alone discounts what I’ve said.
“the way to make the MPAA irrelevant is to develop an alternative film distribution network”
Knock yourself out.
“By the way — did you know that the original MPAA rating system had only three ratings?…. No, of course you don’t. Becuase that would end your perfect record of taking extreme positions on issues without actually knowing a goddamn thing about them).”
Uh, yeah. I did know that, Ted. Because I’ve been going to movies for a very long time. I remember GP, too. I’m not sure - again - how any of this relates to or makes your point. I know about the Hays Code, as well. Heck, I even know about Tippecanoe and Tyler, too, too.
And I’m sorry if you think that abolishing the MPAA is an extreme position, but what makes it so odd is you seem to think it should be abolished as well. Go figure.
“Forget about the widest possible release; bring back the rolling release, which minimizes print costs and lowers marketing costs by allowing for targeted advertising in stages, with revenue generated by early exhibitions being channelled back into advertising for future exhibitions.”
Works for me. Go make it happen. If I can lend a hand, be sure to let me know. Because when that was the way it worked, in my humble opinion, the caliber of movies coming out of this town was somewhere in the vicinity of a million times higher.
“But, I know: that’s just not revolutionary enough for a filmmaker of your caliber.”
Nice. I love how anyone who argues for any level of creative integrity must be an arrogant, elitist snoot.
Olsen:
“It would never occur to me to start posting off topic comments about things I know or have heard about people here”
A bit sanctimonious, don’t you think? Especially, since you just said the following:
“At which point I realized that she was the woman who’d taken offense when I suggested that the Razzberries should be treated lightly and with humor, and that if you write Charlie’s Angels 2, that sort of thing comes with the territory (Who knew it was her passion project?)”
First, the conversations you’re referring to are off topic.
More importantly, they also took place on a private board, where the condition for admission is not to repeat the discussions. So, let’s just start off by stipulating that you’ve ceded the moral high ground – you violated a promise you made to make a point. And a point against someone that hasn’t engaged on this thread.
And, on top of all of it, your words are a gross misrepresentation. The woman in question never called that movie her “passion project,” and putting those words in her mouth is a nasty little bullshit attack. It something an arrogant, elitist snoot would say.
You continue on:
“To this date, I have no idea why someone who had such an antagonistic relationship with me would come up to me and act so obsequious and friendly.”
I know you’ve admitted you crossed a line by telling the story, but you did more than tell the story – you slipped a personal attack in. (Of course, you haven’t apologized for that part yet.) You’re handy with words, so you know exactly what “obsequious” means.
And since you are the one to bring up this part of the story, and you are the one to continue to use the word “lie” repeatedly with regard to other people’s recollections of the event, let me say this: I have heard about the confrontation in question from two different eyewitnesses that I trust implicitly.
Obsequious behavior can only be attached to one of the participants, and it wasn’t anyone you’re attributing it to.
Holy mother of christ… what the hell happened on that elevator ?!
Jeff,
As long as we’re getting on people for word usage - a participant is not an eyewitness. The closest thing to an eyewitness was my producing partner, and he’s tainted, because he actually shook hands with them and exchanged greetings.
Ask the Wibberlys, next time they tell the story - if they remove the assumption that I had the slightest fucking clue who they were, would it make a difference?
Here’s the mistake you’re making, and believe me - I know telling you this will only result in more snippy bullshit, because, let’s face it - it ain’t the truth you’re interested in. But I live in hope…
I can walk down any street in the world, and the only people who know who I am are friends and family, safe in my anonymity. In this very small company town, though, I’m a guy who was nominated for every award under the sun for a movie that was a bit of an industry darling. As a result of that, I’ve done gobs of personal appearances and Q&As and interviews. I’m on a magazine cover with George Clooney, for Christ’s sake. (The Guild magazine, for sure, but a magazine nonetheless). Believe it or not, even now, more than a year later, I still get approached by people who’ve seen me talk somewhere, or heard one of my Creative Screenwriting podcasts or some such other thing. (Hi, Steve!)
It’s an amazing perk to a job I love. It’s given me access to worlds and people I never thought I’d come close to. I may be the only aspiring filmmaker to come to LA who didn’t have an Oscar dream.
Three years ago, when someone walked up to me with their hand out and a smile on their face, it meant I knew them personally. Now, I have no idea.
And you know what? It still blows my mind.
Ted’s the only person here who can vouch for any of this, but I think it’s reasonably common sense.
So yeah, when the Wibberlys introduced themselves, I was extremely friendly and polite. Because the first thing they said was, “Are you Josh Olson?” which is not something a friend says. It’s something someone you’ve never met says. So I was friendly. And I was polite. And since they gave me no context, and I have no idea who they are, I continued to be friendly for the duration of our thirty to forty five second encounter.
And that’s really it. The notion that a brief, very bizarre encounter that happened so many months ago is now fodder for this sort of discussion is ludicrous. If the Wibberlys want to go around and lie to their friends about me, that’s their business. But if assholes want to bring it up in a public forum and keep perpetuating it, I’m going to keep shutting it down.
As for speaking ill of the Wibberly’s, you and Craig have both put me in a strange situation. There’s no way to discuss the situation without doing so. Their behavior was bizarre, and their recounting of it is, I gather from you two, dishonest. If I mis-characterized her comments on WA, I apologize. I seem to recall her saying that CA2 WAS a passion project. If I got that wrong, man, that IS an offense. But I do recall her perpetuating the rumour that my script for History had been massively rewritten, so, hey. Fuck it. Tit for tat.
But I gotta say, I love how you talk about it like you were there. As partial as you are, it had to have caused you a moment’s pause when you accused me of lying about an event I was a central character in that you didn’t even witness.
Let me repeat that - THAT YOU DIDN’T EVEN WITNESS.
What a maroon.
Olsen:
First, let me tick off the squares on my Olsen Ego Bingo Card…
“Harlan Ellison… Academy Award nominee… nominated for every award under the sun… movie that was a bit of an industry darling… gobs of personal appearances… magazine cover with George Clooney…”
Hey, Bingo!
All right, moving on to your post.
“If I mis-characterized her comments on WA, I apologize. I seem to recall her saying that CA2 WAS a passion project. If I got that wrong, man, that IS an offense. But I do recall her perpetuating the rumour that my script for History had been massively rewritten, so, hey. Fuck it. Tit for tat.”
Why “if,” Olsen? Just take ten seconds, go to WA, and search for her posts with the word “Charlie’s” in them. I did it. What she said couldn’t have been more the opposite of what you accused her of.
And you “recall?” God forbid you should track down actual quotes before you accuse someone of libel.
But that’s your ploy - misrepresent the past to make your arguments, and yourself, look better.
Which brings us to…
“But I gotta say, I love how you talk about it like you were there.”
Olsen, only you could read this: “I have heard about the confrontation in question” and turn it into me trying to say I was there. I could not have been clearer that I was not there. There was no wiggle room for misinterpretation. None.
And unlike taking ten seconds to google or look up something, all you had to do was scroll up one inch. Certainly that isn’t too much research for you, is it?
But, again, let’s not let the facts get in the way of your pretty outrage.
Let me repeat that - LET’S NOT LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF YOUR PRETTY OUTRAGE.
(Nice rhetorical trick. I’m totally stealing that.)
Gee - the elevator story does sound intriguing. However, on the topic of ratings …
I’ll use the History Of Violence as an example. If the staircase sex scene had been removed to avoid an R-rating the ending of the film would not have made sense to me in terms of the couple’s relationship.
That scene — at least for me — reflected the inexplicable “thing” so unique to each couple it can’t be verbally communicated yet is often the reason why couples stay together even though, to outsiders, their relationship makes no sense. It was a great multi-layered scene, it needed to remain in the film.
Now, would removing a smoking scene to change a rating impact a film negatively? I don’t know, I guess it should be judged on a case-by-case basis by the writers.
But it is my opinion, as a Mom, that this rating effort to protect kids from the evils of cigarettes is bogus.
As I said before anyone who has raised teens knows they’re more impacted by the behavior & opinions of their peers than any other factor.
And I need to add one last thing about spanking or hitting kids — it teaches your kids that hitting others forces their victim to conform to their will. As a result, doing more damage to their kids than any film.
Anyone who can’t raise a child WITHOUT spanking them is either too lazy or troubled to parent anyone.
Jeff,
“First, let me tick off the squares on my Olsen Ego Bingo Card…
““Harlan Ellison… Academy Award nominee… nominated for every award under the sun… movie that was a bit of an industry darling… gobs of personal appearances… magazine cover with George Clooney…” Hey, Bingo!”
Ah, here we go. Now it begins.
See, if we were having this discussion ten years ago, and I related pertinent aspects of my life THEN- living in a one room apartment on Crack Street, writing shitty straight to video movies that even I don’t watch, banging away at night on specs that may never sell, you’d never accuse me of egomania. But have the audacity to mention the facts of my life NOW, and I’m an egomaniac.
I call bullshit on you, bubba. Every single fucking thing I’ve said here was pertinent to this discussion. What am I supposed to do? Pretend none of that stuff happened because some ass hat on the internet will think I’m taking on airs? Pretend strangers don’t walk up and introduce themselves to me fairly regularly because it might bruise your feelings? Ridiculous.
“Why “if,” Olsen? Just take ten seconds, go to WA, and search for her posts with the word “Charlie’s” in them. I did it. What she said couldn’t have been more the opposite of what you accused her of.”
Asked and answered, and for the record, genius - I’m not a member of WA. I have no access to those boards. Every step of the way, I acknowledged that those were my recollections.
“But that’s your ploy - misrepresent the past”
Gee, you mean the way you’re doing with the Wibberly encounter?
“Olsen, only you could read this: “I have heard about the confrontation in question” and turn it into me trying to say I was there. I could not have been clearer that I was not there. There was no wiggle room for misinterpretation. None.”
And yet, you still call me a liar, even though all you have is an admittedly biased accounting from someone else.
I was there. You weren’t. My name is on my posts. Yours isn’t.
Susan:
I suppose we might as well argue about the scene where Viggo Mortenson attacks the guys in his restaurant.
If you remove that, the movie doesn’t make sense either, right?
Unfortunately, that scene will definitely get the movie an R rating.
So….?
You make a movie knowing fully well what gets an R and what doesn’t. We’re all adults here. The entire discussion has nothing to do with us. We can see anything we want, from people having sex on stairways to people putting rubber fists into each other’s butts.
When these arguments turn into a defense of our artistry, I just shrug. Our artistry hasn’t been impacted at all…except that, say a nine year-old can’t choose on their own to see it.
I’m glad a nine-year old can’t choose on their own to see A History Of Violence (aka the movie we all have to end up talking about in here, no matter what, time after time). Josh isn’t.
Unfortunately for Josh, that isn’t changing any time soon. In fact, it will never change.
SusanC - I want you to have my children. Shit, my wife’s already having my first child. But if we get bored with the little bugger, will you raise her ?
And while were back on the main topic…
After all that’s said and done, what I don’t understand – or rather refuse to accept – is the fundamental concept that a filmmaker would have to make ANY compromise, be it artistic or commercial, by reason of an anonymous group not involved with the production.
No other industry (I can think of) faces this kind of outside scrutiny!
Child obesity.
Now there’s a problem.
If the powers to be were so concerned with kids, why not rate soft drinks? Rate candy! Rate burger joints!
Sorry little Timmy, this Happy Meal is rated R for high cholesterol, sugar and whatever the hell crap they put in junk food these days.
Even better…
Sorry Coca-Cola Company, but you have to reduce the amount of sugar in this soft drink or supermarket owners will not sell your product.
So the question is, why do outside interest groups fail to pressure the Soft-Drink-Rating-Board to take the above actions? Oh, that’s right, the SDRB doesn’t exist.
Ms. C and Mr. Olson,
Can we please get off the great “spanking” debate of 2007? As I immediately told Mr. Hartmann, quit being so melodramatic. It’s a figure of speech we use around here that means “punished.” I swear I think I’m standing in the middle of the McMartin trial. You keep raising your kids the way you want to and I’ll keep raising mine. Guess what? They’re having the time of their lives as good Christian boys WITHOUT seeing all the filth shoved down their throats at the movies. They are looking forward to seeing Transformers and we will be there on opening day. Guess what? It’s rated PG-13 and it looks like fun.
Susan,
All good points, with one small caveat. No one was concerned with avoiding an R. Christ, it’s DEFINITELY an R rated movie - in spite of the bold Anonymous’s assertion, nobody involved with the film was looking to show it to nine year olds. What we had to avoid was an NC-17. And yeah, you’re right - if we’d had to cut that scene, it would have demolished the film.
If you ever rent (or, hey, buy!) the DVD, there’s a supplement on it about the MPAA mandated cuts that were made. It’s short and it’s simple, and it’ll show you exactly how silly the whole system is.
Anonymous —
I’m making the point that a scene can make a difference in the comprehension of a film.
Whether it’s a sex scene, smoking scene, or even violence.
If a writer is compelled to remove certain scenes to get a rating for a wider audience, economics then trumps artistry.
Sex, violence & certain curse words have already been dealt with — now smoking? When will it end?
At some point one can make an argument that characters in a film eating Burger King are glamorizing unhealthy eating for obsese kids.
It’s getting ridiculous.
As for raw violence — there’s plenty of on TV/cable, easily accessible to not only teens but younger kids whose parents use the TV as a babysitter.
I’m also opposed
“I happened to have written CA2 with a burning passion (I loved the series and the first movie), and not for the money.”
Previously on Artful Writer, posted by Marianne Wibberly (in the same passage, in reference to a WA discussion)…
“We were discussing the merits of the Razzies and the Oscars, and I was the one who first brought up that I had worked on CA2 which had been nominated for a Razzie. So although you think the world revolves around you, no, YOU did not bring it up. I did.
And just so you know, I am never insulted by criticisms of my work. You saw how I handled that woman who blamed CA2 for the fall of cinema. I never lashed out at her.”
Mrs. Cunningham,
Welcome back. What about the new Harry Potter movie - that looks like fun, too. AND it’s rated PG-13 (for sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images).
Why can’t they see that?
(that second #1 is supposed to be a #2, btw)
Still getting the lay of the land here…
“But have the audacity to mention the facts of my life NOW, and I’m an egomaniac.”
Sorry. You’re correct. There’s no way you could have made the point that you enjoy conflict without talking about Harlan and your Academy Award nomination. And there’s no way you could have made the point that you know a lot more people than you used to without talking about being on the cover of a magazine with George Clooney.
My apologies for accusing you of hubris.
To be honest, I’ve made this mistake before. I once accused President Clinton of hubris while we were having coffee at George Lucas’s house. Ah, good times.
“Asked and answered, and for the record, genius - I’m not a member of WA. I have no access to those boards. Every step of the way, I acknowledged that those were my recollections.”
Everyone, please pay close attention. This is a perfect example of what Mr. Olsen does. He lies to prove his point. It’s right here, in black and white.
You are still an active member of WA. I just went and pulled up your profile. (Handsome picture of you in a suit. Is that from the Oscars?) Yep, “member.”
Now, it’s true that you haven’t posted since 4-3-06. But you still should have the ability to log in - in fact, you did it January 7th, of this year.
“And yet, you still call me a liar, even though all you have is an admittedly biased accounting from someone else.”
When did I admit the accounting was biased? Oh, wait. You made the accusation. I guess in your world, you assigning a belief to me is the same thing as me holding the belief.
How comforting.
I repeat - HOW COMFORTING.
“I was there. You weren’t. My name is on my posts. Yours isn’t.”
Let’s take care of that mistake.
“They’re having the time of their lives as good Christian boys WITHOUT seeing all the filth shoved down their throats at the movies.”
Maye, I mean seriously, here…Seriously…Really, honestly, seriously…
Are you sure?
Guys I think you’ve been totally unfair to Maye. She never said anything about SPANKING. All she said was her husband was “wearing out their behinds.” He’s RAPING them, not spanking them, silly. It was only your sick twisted Hollywood minds that perverted what she said.
Also, using these same awesome deductive reasoning powers I’ve figured out what REALLY happened on that elevator. And honestly, I feel sick.
Josh, you disgust me, hypothetically.
In my experience, having grown up Christian and attended a church-affiliated college, in my personal experience … “good christian boys” is an extreme oxymoron.
Right up there with “army intelligence” and “compassionate conservative” if not above it.
Arthur, honestly - Olsen doesn’t need a lap dog on this one. Go read the posts on WA that Olsen claims to be recollecting. Better yet, forward them to him, since he seems to have forgotten his password.
Johnny —
You’ll be a great parent. Just be honest and fair with your kids. Communicate constantly. They’ll get it.
Maye —
I’m sorry. I totally disagree with spaking kids. Heck — even dog trainers say smacking a puppy teaches them nothing.
I can’t imagine any situation where only spanking could make your point to your kid.
It’s ridiculous to even imply spanking is necessary to child raising.
And please don’t assume I was soft on my kids because I didn’t hit them. Time-outs and, when they were older, grounding them, removing privileges, made the point perfectly. Give it a try.
Josh —
I’ll check out the DVD supplement.
Jeff -
I’m not trying to be a lapdog here, and will be happy to reread that amazing thread again, but whatever it says, accusing Josh of “libeling” Marianne for saying that CA2 was a passion project (and I read that as dry sarcasm anyway) when she in fact did say right here that she wrote it with a “burning passion” and not the money seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it?
And accusing Josh of “ceding the moral high ground” by “violating the promise” of WA privacy by alluding to a thread that Marianne had actually been the first to allude to on these pages seems a bit unfair, doesn’t it?
Johnny —
That’s about right, although the production code was, at that point, a minor issue — it was the rise in obscenity charges being brought against exhibitors and distributors (actually, and publishers, too — the underground press came into existence about that time), and the threat of government regulation, that prompted the code.
And, let’s not forget that ol’ favorite of trade organizations: protectionism against foreign imports. The production code applied only to studios that subscribed to the code — distributors could pick up foreign movies that included more graphic material than even the relaxed production code permitted, and those movies were grabbing a chunk of audience money that then wasn’t going to the Hollywood majors. Set up a system where exhibitors agree to book only movies that are MPAA rated … well, you see where that goes.
And you seem to be thinking of the smoking regs as a kind of horse trading — we won’t show smoking in movies rated less than R, in exchange, we get to show more men kissing, or something. That’s not quite it. Jack Valenti had begun to lose his effectiveness on the issues of ratings and censorhip, because he always took the position that the ratings system worked perfectly — even if, the next day, the MPAA announced a new rating or a new guideline. This cost a certain amount of support among politicians, support needed now in dealing with piracy issues. With the new guy in place (can’t remember his name), it’s an opportunity to change the perception of the MPAA: look, we’re constantly re-evaluating the system, we’re constantly making adjustments based on changes in community standards, look, there’s no need for governmental regulation — we’re doing it for ourselves.
And, there’s also this: its entirely possible that the people who made this decision sincerely believe that children should not be exposed to images of smoking that glamourize the habit. I don’t know what that means — maybe actors can’t do tricks with Zippos in lighting a cigarette anymore? — and, lacking that, I don’t agree with the guideline. Which means, of course, that I don’t agree with Craig. But I also have no doubt that Craig’s position is a sincere one (I have other friends in the industry who would argue in favor of a rating that puts movies like SAW and HOSTEL off-limits to kids under 10 or so, even if accompanied by a parent. Another position I disagree with — trade organizations and politicians are no more fit to decide what’s appropriate for a kid than his parents are — but, again, I have no doubt that they are sincere).
-
Hey Lowell,
What the fuck is the problem with Olson telling us how his writing life has changed since writing a movie that got a staggering amount of attention?
I read it and it didn’t smack of hubris to me … it smelt true and that’s the kinda stuff I like to hear, whether I agree with the person or not …
Craig’s told us stories of his breakthrough, and recently shared a photo image of a note he wrote that changed his career … Ted’s told us things, Thurman’s shared stuff in Ask a Pro … did you jump up their asses for it?
So … if you got a personal issue with Olson, fine, duke it out, that’s cool … but I WANT to hear this stuff about aftereffects of writing that kind of film because it sure as hell ain’t the kinda thing one can hear in any bullshit McKee seminar … so please don’t discourage these stories from Olson or Craig or anyone by accusing them of puffed up egos …
Hell, how can anyone be a writer of any consquence if they don’t have a confident POV on what they do and how they do it … and it’s shitty to try and piss on that simply because you can’t counter their argument on something else entirely, for fuck’s sake.
Ted -
That’s what I thought. Thanks for the additional insights. I guess the question is, how long can the MPAA keep up this policy of “look, we’re doing it ourselves” before all our artistic choices have been compromised…
Arthur, I’m really not interested in parsing this with you to the nth degree. Keeping up with Olsen’s misstatements is about all I can handle and still get some work done.
I will point out that repeating statements that you yourself made on WA is perfectly fine - not at all a violation of the TOS. Repeating others’ remarks (especially when you misrepresent them) is a violation of the TOS.
As a junior administrator, you should know that.
JeffL: “First, let me tick off the squares on my Olsen Ego Bingo Card…
“Harlan Ellison… Academy Award nominee… nominated for every award under the sun… movie that was a bit of an industry darling… gobs of personal appearances… magazine cover with George Clooney…”
Hey, Bingo!”
But… these are things that happened to Josh, and he IS good friends with Harlan. How is that egotistic? And you missed the point of the Harlan example.
You’re not the teensiest bit jealous, are you?
“You saw how I handled that woman who blamed CA2 for the fall of cinema.”
—Marianne Wibberley, paraphrasing someone else’s WA post, on here.
And inaccurately.
“The woman in question never called that movie her “passion project,” and putting those words in her mouth is a nasty little bullshit attack.”
“I happened to have written CA2 with a burning passion (I loved the series and the first movie), and not for the money.”
Arthur,
Thanks, man. Nice coup de grace.
Jeff,
It occurs to me that I don’t really have to respond to your posts, but I have this thing about letting people spread lies about me.
I don’t have access to the WA site. For a while, I’d get e mails saying I had a message for me there, and I’d check in to get them. That hasn’t happened in quite a while, and at this point in time, I have no workable username or password to get in. If they still list me as an active member, so be it. I have no way of ascertaining that.
And as Arthur has proven, I clearly don’t need to lie about any of this, because if I COULD access the site, it would take about ten seconds to prove you to be the liar you clearly are.
Now - on the subject of the WA exchange, we have black and white evidence that you have misrepresented the facts. (By the way, I think it’s fucking hilarious that when presented with bold, undeniable proof that you misrepresented the exchange, you start squawking about the rules being broken. Heh. Got called on your own bullshit, and couldn’t take it. )
On the subject of the Wibberly exchange, we know for a fact that you were not there, and are blindly accepting the word of your friends. (Which is fine, up to the point that you call me a liar on a public message board).
So.
Game over, man.
Crawl back under your rock.
Staggering?
“I have no workable username or password to get in.”
Here, I’ll give you a hint - your username is “Josh Olsen.” The WA software will automatically send you your password, if you’ve forgotten it.
“Now - on the subject of the WA exchange, we have black and white evidence that you have misrepresented the facts. (By the way, I think it’s fucking hilarious that when presented with bold, undeniable proof that you misrepresented the exchange, you start squawking about the rules being broken. Heh. Got called on your own bullshit, and couldn’t take it. )”
Olsen, Olsen… your reading comprehension is remarkably low for someone who writes for a living. It shouldn’t surprise me, but it still does.
Arthur quoted (quite clearly) an ARTFUL WRITER exchange. He put it in the line before every quote. Again, it could not be more clear.
I would post the WA exchange (the one you can’t access, for some reason), but I respect the Wibberleys’ privacy.
But believe me, it could not be more opposite from what you’re attributing to her.
Add to that, I squawked about the rules being broken before Arthur posted that Artful Writer exchange. But again, why let a little thing like facts stop you? If you just switch the chronology of the events, you can make yourself look good. No one will notice.
As a fellow writer, I’ve got to say - if you’re going to take the time to write the posts, take the time to read the posts you’re responding to.
“On the subject of the Wibberly exchange, we know for a fact that you were not there, and are blindly accepting the word of your friends. (Which is fine, up to the point that you call me a liar on a public message board).”
I implied that someone in the room behaved obsequiously, and you immediately assume I’m talking about you. How interesting.
But this is really an issue for you to take up with your therapist.
Look, Olsen, you charge around attacking people based on your faulty memory and wishful thinking. I know it’s stunning that someone would call you on it, with you being an Academy Award Nominee and best friend of Harlan Ellison and cover buddy of George Clooney, but it’s going to happen.
Just apologize for all your mistakes and move on. I’m sure there’ll be something else for you to be upset about in a day or two.
“I have no workable username or password to get in.”
Here, I’ll give you a hint - your username is “Josh Olsen.” The WA software will automatically send you your password, if you’ve forgotten it.
“Now - on the subject of the WA exchange, we have black and white evidence that you have misrepresented the facts. (By the way, I think it’s fucking hilarious that when presented with bold, undeniable proof that you misrepresented the exchange, you start squawking about the rules being broken. Heh. Got called on your own bullshit, and couldn’t take it. )”
Olsen, Olsen… your reading comprehension is remarkably low for someone who writes for a living. It shouldn’t surprise me, but it still does.
Arthur quoted (quite clearly) an ARTFUL WRITER exchange. He put it in the line before every quote. Again, it could not be more clear.
I would post the WA exchange (the one you can’t access, for some reason), but I respect the Wibberleys’ privacy.
But believe me, it could not be more opposite from what you’re attributing to her.
Add to that, I squawked about the rules being broken before Arthur posted that Artful Writer exchange. But again, why let a little thing like facts stop you? If you just switch the chronology of the events, you can make yourself look good. No one will notice.
As a fellow writer, I’ve got to say - if you’re going to take the time to write the posts, take the time to read the posts you’re responding to.
“On the subject of the Wibberly exchange, we know for a fact that you were not there, and are blindly accepting the word of your friends. (Which is fine, up to the point that you call me a liar on a public message board).”
I implied that someone in the room behaved obsequiously, and you immediately assume I’m talking about you. How interesting.
But this is really an issue for you to take up with your therapist.
Look, Olsen, you charge around attacking people based on your faulty memory and wishful thinking. I know it’s stunning that someone would call you on it, with you being an Academy Award Nominee and best friend of Harlan Ellison and cover buddy of George Clooney, but it’s going to happen.
Just apologize for all your mistakes and move on. I’m sure there’ll be something else for you to be upset about in a day or two.
“I would post the WA exchange (the one you can’t access, for some reason), but I respect the Wibberleys’ privacy.”
But not Josh’s, right? It’s ok to smear him… (fun too!)
did you know Josh eats children? With Marmalade!
“You saw how I handled that woman who blamed CA2 for the fall of cinema.”
Arthur, you’re intelligent enough to know the difference between quoting “that woman” and quoting someone by name.
I know you are.
Jeff, I’m sorry, but you keep changing the rules. First, you said:
“More importantly, they also took place on a private board, where the condition for admission is not to repeat the discussions.”
Later, you said:
“Repeating others’ remarks (especially when you misrepresent them) is a violation of the TOS.”
Marianne’s above quote meets ALL those conditions, including the misrepresenting part. Now you’re saying it has to be identifying the poster BY NAME in order to qualify as a violation? So it’s cool to paraphrase others’ WA posts to our heart’s content as long as we don’t name names?
Cause that ain’t what the TOS says.
“What the fuck is the problem with Olson telling us how his writing life has changed since writing a movie that got a staggering amount of attention?”
Joshua:
I hope I don’t discourage him. I find his stories as revealing as you do - but I bet they’re revealing different things to me than they are to you.
“You’re not the teensiest bit jealous, are you?”
Kay:
No. But I have a different personality than Olsen - I would never seek out “gobs of personal appearances and Q&As and interviews,” even if, by some miracle, I were to become as successful as he is.
“But not Josh’s [privacy], right?”
Ruairi:
I hope I haven’t invaded his privacy in any way, since I value my own. If I have, please quote it so I can apologize.
Obviously, the last post was by me.
And Arthur - I hope Olsen praises you again for your excellent analytical work, because you ain’t making any other friends. ;)
Jeff -
How come you’re derogatively insinuiating my friend Arthur is a “lapdog” when he comes to Olson’s defense, but it’s okay for you to look out for your own?
malcom s -
See, this is exactly what I was talking about. Scroll up to see who threw the first punch. Like I said earlier, the gunslinger syndrome…
Ruairi -
Stop making me chuckle - it makes it so damn bloody hard to dislike you (which I was getting real good at).
“How come you’re derogatively insinuiating my friend Arthur is a “lapdog” when he comes to Olson’s defense, but it’s okay for you to look out for your own?”
Might be because the people Olsen is attacking aren’t here to defend themselves, while Olsen is.
Jeff -
The thing of it is, I think very highly, both professionally and personally, of BOTH sides of this particular melee, so I’d much prefer to see them on the same team than at odds, and the only reason I entered into this at all was in the interest of fair play and accuracy, which is to say, providing direct quotes that show Marianne doing, months ago, the very same thing that you are knocking Josh for doing. She introduced the whole CA2 discussion months ago, and she paraphrased another WA poster’s comment quite inaccurately. Them’s the facts.
If pointing this out alienates you against me, well, I’m sorry to hear that, but if I only pointed out double standards when people I disliked committed them…well, that itself would be a double standard, wouldn’t it?
Is it Olson or Olsen?
“Might be because the people Olsen is attacking aren’t here to defend themselves, while Olsen is.”
In all fairness…
Craig was the one who brought up the infamous Wibberley Encounter*
*(for those who tuned in late: apparently the angry savage josh took a 30 seconds elevator with two people and failed to beast-fuck them – which proves that his online persona is not the real him and thus establishes that all his statement’s regarding the rating system are false).
Josh did not attack – he defended himself.
Then Jeff attacked from left field.
Which resulted in more Josh defending himself.
Disregarding all minutiae of the argument istelf, the point is that in the bigger picture Josh did not attack anyone before he was attacked by others !
(and she said that she wrote CA2 with a burning passion. Pretend I edited that into my last post.
Arthur - check out the PREVIEW button, it’s to the left of the POST button, no, the other left.
Arthur:
Do you see a difference between paraphrasing a private conversation and identifying the speaker as “that woman” and paraphrasing a private conversation and identifying the speaker by name?
It’s a simple question.
“Josh did not attack – he defended himself.”
Yes, calling people who haven’t posted in the thread obsequious liars was really a strong defensive maneuver.
Wait - did you mean the best defense is a good offense?
Jeff.
People make mistakes. They post things on messageboards without thinking. It’s happened to me before. Hell, I’ve done it myself. Thing is, without getting all playground, Craig did start it. When I read his post, I thought it was a fairly personal comment.
You know what? I would have responded exactly as Josh did. Explaining what happened. Sadly, he let something slip that happened on another messageboard. That happens. Probably a lot.
Craig should have apologized for even bringing it up, since it had absolutely no bearing on a debate about the MPAA and smoking, and was just… weird. That people continue to attack Josh for something that began with Craig, well that’s weird too.
Josh is a big boy, he can take care of himself. He doesn’t need me to defend him.
Thing is, this debate about what happened that night, who saw what, whatever it is… it’s nobody’s business but Josh’s and the Wibberleys’. End of debate.
Back to the MPAA and smoking… I started smoking when I was 12. My mom smoked, so I stole a pack of her cigarettes. My friends smoked, so I used that stolen pack of smokes to learn how.
My mom also used to take me to a lot of movies. After the movie, if there was something that she thought warranted an explanation — she’d explain it. Violence, sex, whatever — usually between drags of her cigarette.
If parents rely on the MPAA to do their parenting for them, fine. But, I worry for the next generation.
“Do you see a difference between paraphrasing a private conversation and identifying the speaker as “that woman” and paraphrasing a private conversation and identifying the speaker by name?”
Yes, I do. If you want me to admit that one is a bigger breach than the other, fine, I admit it. But it was Marianne who brought the private CA2/Razzies conversation from the confines of WA into the public air, and the TOS considers this a breach whether she named any other parties or not, so to rail on Josh for having violated his promise of privacy while overlooking Marianne’s breach…I remain unconvinced that that’s entirely fair. Further, to call “bullshit” on Josh for remarking that Marianne called CA2 a “passion project” when she in fact did say she wrote it with a “burning passion”…same deal.
Sorry, but I call ‘em like I see ‘em.
Johnny -
Even if I previewed, I’d still leave shit out and remember it later. I’m dumb that way. Thanks, though.
”Wait - did you mean the best defense is a good offense?”
No.
We can settle the other debate once and for all, by Marianne Wibberley’s own account (just ctrl+F “marianne”) of what happened that night (not that it’s ever been anyone’s business):
http://artfulwriter.com/archives/2006/12/therealityorg.html
I still maintain that Craig was in the wrong to bring it up (it’s actually a little weird, in that thread, that Marianne brought it up, actually). And Josh’s response is justified.
Oh, and I enjoyed CA2.
Also, I still smoke. I’d quit if the movies told me to.
“Might be because the people Olsen is attacking aren’t here to defend themselves, while Olsen is.”
No, they’re not. Apparently, they prefer to attack the old-fashioned girlie way — by whispering innuendo, half-truths and outright fabrications from behind their hands, and then let their friends go out and spread it for them.
Here’s what I don’t understand, though. If the Wibberlys were so het up about Josh, why did they go out of their way to introduce themselves in the first place? Don’t you think that’s kind of weird, borderline pathological behavior?
Josh has said repeatedly that he didn’t know who they were and (gasp!) was polite in kind. They didn’t introduce themselves. Instead, they walked up to him and said, “Are you Josh Olson?” The whole int