<![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, failures]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/gawker.com.png <![CDATA[Gawker: defamer, failures]]> http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/failures http://gawker.com/tag/defamer/failures <![CDATA[Who's Tucker Max Blaming For His Movie's Failure Now?]]> Oh, Tucker Max: he gave sleazy Encyclopedia Brotanica-eque website AskMen.com an interview. Given the chance to speak freely, he starts his egomanical blame game all over again. This time, blame: Middle America, The Man, His Artistry, and His Producers. Awesome!

Yeah. He went there.

He starts opining about how he wishes he had a different strategy—like to start in one city, as Paranormal Activity did—thus ironically echoing the same ethos of The Man Running Hollywood that he later rallies against: find the thing that just performed really, really well, and try to capitalize on its success. Which, whoops, too late.

See, but Max doesn't think he's The Man. He thinks he's The Artist. He's one of The People Who Create. And the people who fucked up his movie chance to become the next E.T. are not. No, really:

Look, here's what people who don't create don't understand, is that once you take money from the machine, the machine owns you. And I was just never ever going to let that happen.

Kinda wish I were an artist, so my art could be 'relevant,' bro. He goes on: he doesn't hate on Big Movies because he's an Indie Movie Guy, because, you know, Transformers would make a stupid indie movie, right? So he's an indie guy. And there's no way he could've sold this movie out to be funny, no way. He just didn't let it go down like this, man. He would've had to stab someone if they put Seth Rogen in his movie. Not happening, no way.

This movie, if we had sold it to [FOX] Searchlight, they would've put Seth Rogen and Dane Cook in it, and they would've cut all the f*cking balls out of the jokes, and they would've brought in some sh*t bird to rewrite the script who would've had Tucker have a girlfriend and this and that, and then it's like they own everything, they may have fired me… I would've stabbed somebody if they had done that. They would've fired me off the movie because they own it — I don't own sh*t anymore, but then I'm the one who has to live with all their creative decisions.

Creative decisions! Like where to put the balls in the movie. Spielberg had the same problem with the girl in the red coat in Schindler's List, which he originally wanted to call Nazis Are Fucked Up, Yo. When you make a Big Studio Movie, you only get so much creative control over the ball jokes, you know? Max goes on to cite another problem as the opening of the film in small cities liek Carbondale, Illinois, a memory that provokes him to rage: "They just don't know the f*cking movies!" But he saves the best for the people of Darko Entertainment, Donnie Darko director Richard Kelly's production company, who produced the movie.

Now, come on. Donnie Darko's a great movie and say what you will of Southland Tales, but at least there's more to say about it besides "it sucks," something many movies (like Tucker's) can't move past. Why, Richard Kelly, did you let this guy into your house?

Well, hopefully, lesson learned. Especially after this bullshit:

Darko [Entertainment] gave us all the creative freedom we could've ever wanted with the budget we had, but once the movie was done, they made a lot of decisions distribution-wise that I would not have made. A lot of things.

How about: your movie is poop, the original product is started out as was poop, you are poop, and if anybody ever lets you work in Hollywood again, they, too, are poop? Nope. Because Tucker's got dreams, man. Big ones:

Another book, Assholes Finish First is coming out next year and then English release [of the film] is New Year's — UK release. Those are the next two big things.

1. Because the British don't think we're doltish enough.
2. Because, lesson learned, Assholes Definitely Finish First. In the race to the bargain bin. Which is where all Tucker Max material will continue to land.

Meta. Bro.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5409975&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Most-Watched Super Bowl Ever Is a Disaster for NBC Universal]]> Jeff Zucker's division made about half as much money last quarter as it did the year before. So to judge by the upward-failure arc of his career, he'll be running GE in about three weeks.

NBC Universal—which runs, among other things, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, USA Network, Universal Studios, and a bunch of theme parks—pulled in a profit of $391 million in the first quarter of 2009, versus $712 million in the first quarter of the previous year.

It's yet another colossal failure in Zucker's cap: He single-handedly engineered the demise of NBC from first place to fourth; he spent insane amounts of money on the Olympics in Athens and Beijing, which netted great ratings but not enough ad revenue to keep profits growing; he hired a club-kid to run NBC; and he acknowledged defeat last month. But he keeps on keeping his job, maybe because he dazzles and confuses his General Electric boss Jeffrey Immelt with reflections from his exceedingly bald head.

NBC Universal blames the profit drop squarely on the broadcast television unit, which lets it mask poor executive decisions behind the general advertising recession. Yes, local TV advertising is down because nobody is buying cars. But NBC also says that the Super Bowl was a drag on profits:

While NBC aired Super Bowl XLIII to great ratings success, there were significant production costs to air the big game, combined with rights fees paid to the NFL. Those expenses added up to $45 million in the quarter.

"Ratings success" understates it: Super Bowl 43 was the most-watched Super Bowl game in history, and the second-most watched program in the history of television. That's right: NBC Universal is explaining it's poor performance last quarter by saying that it got stuck with broadcasting the No. 2 television broadcast since the medium was invented. Tough luck guys!

Also dragging down profits were expenses relating to the Beijing Olympics, another huge ratings success that, in the normal course of business, ought to mean more money, not less. DVD sales were also down significantly.

On the upside, NBC Universal's cable networks were up 19%, which explains why executives were describing boring old USA this week as the company's "single biggest asset."

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5216657&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Dear Kate Hudson: Where Did It All Go Wrong?]]> With My Best Friend's Girl abysmal box office performance last weekend now behind us, we've been pondering the fallout of some of film's stars. Obviously Jason Biggs is always going to be known as the dude who stuck his peen in an apple pie. And Dane Cook's MySpace rants have gotten more views than all of his films put together. But Kate Hudson! We had so much hope for you, spawn of Goldie Hawn. Once a flaxen-haired hippie goddess with daisies laced in your hair, your gracefully slept your way to the top of the Stillwater groupies in Almost Famous. And you were almost more endearing than annoying in How To Lose A Guy In Ten Days, which we must admit we occasionally watch on TBS when our plans fall through on a Friday night. We thought you might be on your way to becoming the queen of chick flicks, but now, you've taken it too far.

How you suddenly went from a cute, perky blonde ingénue to a shrill, talentless flop is puzzling, but we have a feeling the downward spiral began when you took on the gem that was Fool's Gold, in which you reprised your stale dynamic with co-star Matthew McConaughey. Okay, so the film did decently, pulling in $70 million stateside. But it was the film that officially marked you as a romantic foil. You've made a habit out of banking on your hunky co-stars - even doubling up with the Wilson brothers by taking Owen in You, Me, and Dupree, and Luke in Alex and Emma. No longer are you the enticing, independent Penny Lane we once knew who wanted to establish her own identity as an actress. Instead, you seem more interested in raising your dating profile by serving as Lance Armstrong's last blonde-of-the-month.

And we're not the only ones who are upset. Your poor career choices have also angered film blogger Jeffrey Wells, who has some harsh words for you:

When was the last time you saw a trailer for a Hudson movie and said to yourself, "Hey, wow...that one looks good." I've been saying the exact opposite for about five years now. ... It can be assumed she's not Albert Einstein. And it's just a shame. ... Her name is synonymous with mediocrity and ditziness. What are the odds of a director of serious calibre ever offering Hudson a role as good as Penny Lane again? Next to nil at this point.

Ouch, girlfriend. And now comes news that you were acting holier-than-thou towards Anne Hathaway on the set of your latest project Bride Wars? If we may, perhaps copping an attitude with the girl who might save your next film isn't your best move.

]]>
http://gawker.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5053780&view=rss&microfeed=true