Logo

Cool News

A Letter To UNIVERSAL STUDIO EXECS about MAN ON THE MOON!

Published at:  Jun 02, 1999 4:39:35 AM CDT

Dear Universal Pictures,

Your Marketing people do not know what they are
talking about. Your Executives are without a clue.
And apparently you have a great film that you do not
know what to do with.

The Film? MAN ON THE MOON.

It has come to my attention that Milos Foreman has
recently screened, basically, his final cut of MAN ON
THE MOON, the Jim Carrey/Andy Kaufman
Biopic/Drama from the writers of ED WOOD and
THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLYNT.

And ya know what? I heard that you and your
marketing people are in a state of PANIC.

The Marketing people believe the film is unsellable.
Undoubtedly because the movie is a dead on delivery
of the script, I’m told, and that the last half of the film
is ‘gut wrenchingly painful’.

As for you Execs.... Well I hear you aren’t happy
either. I hear Jim Carrey isn’t Jim Carrey in the film.
Shock! I hear that he isn’t real funny in the role
either. Instead, I hear he’s Andy Kaufman and that
Carrey is invisible inside the role. I also hear that you
execs didn’t like the script too much, but figured
that... well... It’s Milos Foreman and Jim Carrey...
They’ll do something colorful and funny.

Meanwhile, I hear that the United Talent Agency isn’t
accepting dramatic scripts for Jim Carrey because of
Universal’s horror at MAN ON THE MOON... a film
that doesn’t have a date on the release schedule, and
that Universal desperately wants to make changes on.

However, Universal doesn’t want to Test Market the
film cause they don’t want word to leak out about the
fact that the movie is basically a creepy and dark
mystery about the man we all knew as Andy
Kaufman, that it leaves him a mystery... And my
source that was at the screening felt the movie was
brilliant. GUESS WHAT? Too Late.... I’ve heard!

Well....

Universal, I tell ya what. I understand you’re at wit’s
end about this film. I mean... gosh... You can’t allow
this film to damage the shiny pearl that is Jim Carrey
and let him become a real actor. I mean... What
would that mean for THE GRINCH.... or ME,
MYSELF AND IRENE? You’ve got an investment
to protect.

Ya can’t go and have the audience become afraid of
Jim Carrey. But at the same time, you have to be
careful to tiptoe around Carrey’s perception of how
you’re treating this film cause it’s dear to his heart.

Ok... First off I want to introduce you to your
director.... His name is Milos Foreman. He’s won
two Academy Awards... One for directing ONE
FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST and one for
AMADEUS. He was also nominated for his direction
of THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLYNT. He won the
Grand Prize at Cannes for his fantastic film, TAKING
OFF back in 1971. He is one of the most decorated
directors of film in the world. His work is... Brilliant.
And you are thinking of telling him how to change his
portrait of a man who was himself a tragic genius
trapped inside a seriously screwed universe of his
own construction?

Have you ever seen AMADEUS?

There’s an exchange of dialogue that I really like
between Jeffrey Jones and Tom Hulce about one of
Mozart’s greatest musical achievements.

Mozart asks Emperor Joseph II, what is wrong with
this piece of music... And this dolt, this peacock of a
man says that there were simply too many notes... Cut
a few out, and it’d be perfect. And Mozart retorts....
“Which notes?”

Universal... Don’t think because you are behind
closed doors that I won’t talk about what’s going on.
Milos Foreman is simply one of the most important
filmmakers in the world right now. He’s a man doing
brilliant work. In fact of all living filmmakers, he’s
the closest living filmmaker to the level of work that
Stanley Kubrick took on.

Jim Carrey is an actor trying to show that he is an
actor. He’s been trapped inside the funnyman act for
a while now, but ya know what? Carrey is good
enough to do both. Others are too. Did LEAVING
LAS VEGAS hurt Nicholas Cage’s box office clout
when CON AIR and THE ROCK came along? Did
DEAD POET’S SOCIETY, WHAT DREAMS MAY
COME and THE FISHER KING hurt Robin
Williams when MRS DOUBTFIRE and PATCH
ADAMS were released?

And ya know what? Audiences become entranced
when an actor can become more than just the dog and
pony act that started his career.

How to market the film? How about as a great film?
Not a happy film, not a heart warming film, not as a
feel good film.... But as...

A MILOS FOREMAN FILM

FROM THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING
DIRECTOR OF ‘ONE FLEW OVER THE
CUCKOOS NEST’ AND ‘AMADEUS’

Hell, show it to me, I’ll tell ya what to do.... Free of
charge... Just cause I like ya so.

Believe it or not there is a world of film beyond the
middle America touchy-feely zone. There is an
audience for films that get into a man’s soul, that tells
of the pain that lays there. And there is always a
place for great films.

This isn’t new for Universal... Tonight I get to go see
THE UNKNOWN... A Lon Chaney film about a
knife thrower with no arms. A Universal Film....
Produced by Todd Browning... Where is he now?

Now.... Take a look at this TALK BACK... See what
the audience thinks about unsafe films... Movies that
leave a laceration on the psyche. See what they think
of Milos Foreman, the director... and Jim Carrey, the
actor.... and Andy Kaufman... the legend.



    + Expand All

    Readers Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:49:27 AM CDT

    Forman

    by nickarcel

    Harry: You don't even know whether this film actually stinks. Do you really believe that EVERY executive is a jerk without any film knowledge? The film people are human just as you an I. If they see a masterpiece, they'd probably know it in their hearts. Forman has made two mediocre films the past seven years. If Ridley Scott can bomb, so can Milos. And I'm first, I guess.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:54:02 AM CDT

    Give 'em hell Harry.

    by xridley

    Film executives often feel they have to "do" something to earn their keep. So, they twaddle around with the work of others. Can you picture them at a cocktail party, talking up some leggy blonde, "So I says Milo, 'Milo, get in the game baby, its Carrey, not Kaufmann, baby'" What an asshole.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:54:56 AM CDT

    Carrey is the King.......

    by kev

    ......and is that a best actor oscar nomination i'm sensing?????
    Reaheheheheeeeellllyyyy....

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:02:11 AM CDT

    Harry Here... How do I know?

    by harry knowles

    Nickarcel.... Well, ya know. How do I know? Because I make it my business to know. Because I've read the script and I know the material. Because I've talked with a couple of people that were there. And to others that know of what transpired. I know because it's what I do. BTW, Milos has only made 1 film in the last Seven years... It was called THE PEOPLE VS LARRY FLYNT, and here are the rewards that it was nominated for and won.... Academy Awards, USA
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Nominated
    Oscar
    Best Actor
    Woody Harrelson
    Best Director
    Milos Forman

    Berlin International Film Festival
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Golden Berlin Bear
    - Milos Forman

    Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Nominated
    BFCA Award
    Best Picture

    Casting Society of America, USA
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Artios
    Best Casting for Feature Film, Drama
    Jo Doster (location casting)
    Francine Maisler

    Chicago Film Critics Association Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    CFCA Award
    Most Promising Actress
    Courtney Love

    Czech Film and Television Academy Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1998
    Nominated
    Czech Lion
    Best Foreign Language Film
    Milos Forman

    European Film Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Outstanding European
    Achievement in World
    Cinema
    - Milos Forman

    Golden Globes, USA
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Golden Globe
    Best Director - Motion Picture
    Milos Forman
    Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
    Scott Alexander (I)
    Larry Karaszewski
    Nominated
    Golden Globe
    Best Motion Picture - Drama
    Best Performance by an Actor in a
    Motion Picture - Drama
    Woody Harrelson
    Best Performance by an Actress in a
    Motion Picture - Drama
    Courtney Love

    Golden Satellite Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Golden Satellite Award
    Best Actress in a Supporting Role in a
    Motion Picture - Drama
    Courtney Love

    MTV Movie Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Nominated
    MTV Movie Award
    Best Breakthrough Performance
    Courtney Love

    New York Film Critics Circle Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1996
    Won
    NYFCC Award
    Best Supporting Actress
    Courtney Love

    Screen Actors Guild Awards
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Nominated
    SAG Award
    Outstanding Performance by a Male
    Actor in a Leading Role
    Woody Harrelson

    Writers Guild of America, USA
    Year
    Result
    Award
    Category/Recipient(s)
    1997
    Won
    Paul Selvin Honorary
    Award
    - Scott Alexander (I)
    Larry Karaszewski . So my friend. If that's a mediocre film, then I pray this film is as mediocre. If you were talking of VALMONT... the film he made 10 years ago... Well it too picked up awards, and ya know what? It's far from mediocre. Before you start hurling stones, at least educate yourself on the subject matter at hand.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:03:06 AM CDT

    Silly

    by chainlink17

    The saddest part about Universal is that they have made GREAT films for the last few years. For the most part, their roster has entertained, if not surprised me. Pig in the City is incredible, Out of Sight was one of the decade's best in terms of style (and STYLE). They've produced tripe (One True THing) but at least it was more of a good meneudo. Tasty, but still tripe.
    Brian Grazer has produced some good movies, but damn, you can't see a film trailer nowadays without hearing 'a new film from the producer of nutty professor, liar liar, ad infinitum' ick. Why didn't they do that with his production of faux Psycho? 'From the Producer of Parenthood, comes a new film about mothers and their sons....'

    sheesh.

    Their line-up this year is very strong. Mystery Men, American Pie, Bowfinger!!!, Notting Hill, Man on the Moon... wow... having seen three of these already, and digging them most righteously, I can't wait to see the other three... If they scrap Franky and/or Hellboy, they deserve the wrath of all the Universal Monsters unleashed upon their asses... How pathetic... Man on the Moon is most likely one of the greats... they should respect their talent, and their audiences... even if they don't have the intelligence or sense to 'get it'....

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:08:26 AM CDT

    History Lesson

    by anton_sirius

    Dark films about oddballs and loners have traditionally not done well at the box office. Y'know, like Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, the Exorcist, Pulp Fiction, even Milos' own One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest... oh, wait, they all topped $100 million, didn't they? How'd a unmarketable film like Silence of the Lambs make a dime? Must be some kind of fluke, right? That list doesn't even include more 'touchy-feely' misfit movies like Forrest Gump or As Good As It Gets. I mean wake up people, if As Good As It Gets can score nine digits then Man On The Moon is a pretty safe bet. Leave it alone, release it in October (late enough for the Oscars, early enough to duck Bond and the other Xmas heavy hitters) and you've got it made.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:14:21 AM CDT

    Why is Universal flipping out NOW?!?

    by prankster

    The time to flip out was six months ago, when I would have had FAR graver worries about their upcoming schedule. But now that Mummy's a hit, and Notting Hill is the talk of the town, and American Pie is getting lots of good buzz, you'd think they'd calm down a tad. Nevertheless, I think this movie will do OK...no test screenings? GOOD! No mucking around with this movie. But I think the combined power of Milos Foreman and Jim Carrey (if he likes it as much as you say) will get this movie out there, sans cuts. This could be good news! PS. Why don't you defend yourself like that more often, Harry? Lord knows there are a lot of other idiots who don't know whereof they slag.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:15:11 AM CDT

    Amen, brother Knowles

    by fignewton

    I can't tell you how much I've been looking forward to see this film...and that's good, because I obviously don't have to. You already know how I and many other people feel. Hopefully they'll get their heads out of their collective arse and bring this film out in the manner which was intended.

    -Aaron

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:21:56 AM CDT

    It's horrifying.

    by jj mcclure

    Truly frightening.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:42:43 AM CDT

    Universal is "touched in the head"

    by general kenobi

    This movie is very easy to market. Everyone who was a fan of Andy Kaufmann knows that he wasn't really like "Latka" on "Taxi "just like Jim Carrey's fans know that he is not like the characters that he played on "In Living Color". This film will be the perfect progression from a man that started in mindless roles like "Ace Ventura; Pet Detective" to a far meatier role like "The Truman Show". Like Harry said other actors like Robin Williams, Steve Martin and others have gone from "silly" parts to more dramatic parts and the audience still "got it". Take a chance! If the movie doesn't dominate the box office at least Universal had the balls to release a film that doesn't deserve to go straight to video. This movie is far better than that. l

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:48:43 AM CDT

    Universal

    by leadbelly

    Is anyone suprised that Universal is screwing up this film??? This is the same studio that managed to fuck up Babe 2.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:51:42 AM CDT

    Whadduya mean, no release date?

    by stevemeister

    What happened to the November 5, 1999 release date? Every place I've checked indicates that the film will be released then. There's no release date posted yet on the official site ("www.man-on-the-moon.com"), but Universal takes their own sweet time about updating their official sites anyway. Regardless of when it comes out, it's high on my must-see list -- if anything to see Christopher Lloyd reprise his "Reverend Jim" role once again!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:08:55 AM CDT

    Milos on the Moon

    by smilin'jackruby

    Right behind you, Harry. I've been waiting for this movie ever since I heard that the Kaufman bio-pic was being made. I was scared shitless that Carrey was going to be doing Kaufman as I really, really like Kaufman, but from everything I've heard, it was done RIGHT. Universal...please, just release the film. Trust the audience and sweep up at the Academy Awards. You'll get nominations across the board and you might retain some credibility. You will actually be making a lot of money this year (Heaven forbid) as you have a fantastic slate of projects following last years slip that people will actually be going to see. You want "Variety" headlines saluting you alongside "Man on the Moon" so just shoot it out straight for Oscar consideration, step back, and trust people to see it. Who cares if it's dark? That's exactly what we're expecting from a Kaufman biopic. We're not stupid.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:22:34 AM CDT

    PLEASE LEAVE THIS FILM ALONE!!

    by w. leach

    Universal, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE leave MAN ON THE MOON alone. PLEASE do not make changes in it!!! MAN ON THE MOON is the movie I'm most looking forward to this year. It's my PHANTOM MENACE, if you will. Andy Kaufman was a brilliant artist, and the screenplay is absolutely perfect. It captures everything Andy. Jim Carrey is an excellent choice for Kaufman. This will be the role he'll be remembered for. Trust me, there are millions of Andy Kaufman fans out there. We don't want to see our hero tarnished by a studio which thinks that the movie won't sell. Believe me, it will sell. Kaufman died of cancer. Don't deprive mainstream moviegoers of this dark, but bizarre final chapter in Andy's life. After Andy was diagnosed (around November, 1983), everybody, including close friends, thought he was joking. Andy searched for a miracle cure, even supposedly going to a witch doctor. As the end drew near, and a frail, balding Andy was being pushed around in a wheelchair, people would still say "Great joke, Andy." When he died in May, 1984, people didn't know whether to laugh or cry. Even at his funeral (which I believe is in the script) people expected Andy to jump out of his coffin and laugh at them for buying his demise. This ending works absolutely perfectly. I simply cannot IMAGINE the film ending any other way. Milos Forman should have final cut, no questions asked. Come to think of it, many of Forman's earlier works had dark endings as well, and the studios didn't seem to tamper with them. ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST: as in the book, a lobotomized McMurphy is smothered by the Indian, who does it to put the living vegetable out of his misery; AMADEUS has a dying Mozart struggling to finish one last piece. When he dies, his body is unceremoniously dumped in a shallow grave; in THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT, Larry's drug-addicted bisexual wife Althea Leisure contracts the AIDS virus, and drowns in her indoor swimming pool as a frantic wheelchair-bound Larry tries to save her. Each one of these films has moments of high comedy, but the endings are dark and tragic. PLEASE!!!! Leave MAN ON THE MOON alone. As I said, Andy Kaufman has millions of fans, and it would be a crime to see this film mistreated. The people who love Andy's works will love this film, I'm sure. I know I'll see it more than once in the theater. Universal, please do not tamper with brilliance.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:24:15 AM CDT

    S I T H S L A Y E R SEZ:

    by sithslayer

    Universal, I have a title for ya: "EdTV". 'Nuff said.

    Reply to Talkback

  • There's no helping a studio that couldn't sell one of the more entertaining and stylish flicks to come out of Hollywood in recent years, Out of Sight. Take one bona-fide red-hot TV star who can make a flick without soiling himself, the one actress today who can pull off the trick of simultaneously looking good and seeming intelligent, a supporting cast of the best character actors available, a whip-smart screenplay from the busiest screenwriter in town, based on one of America's most well-known modern novelists, a team of producers whose heads seem uncharacteristically unburdened of their tails, and a ground-breaking director with a still-growing following and a genuine masterpiece behind him...then mix it all together and wind up with a great caper flick/romantic comedy. If you can't sell that, you couldn't sell ice water in the Sahara. Pack it up and let the interns take over. Join the growth market of selling Episode I bootlegs.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:31:47 AM CDT

    kaufmann's life was not comedy

    by mean ween

    what went on with this guy was SCARY. watching that documentary - i don't know if it was on vh1 or E! or what - it gave me chills. the guy was out of his mind but in a way he was controlled... he had a purpose even though no one else could understand it. that's what made him so friggin scary. I hope universal releases this untouched. If they try to soften it, or try to dumb it down or give it a campy carrey feel, I won't go near it. see y'all in meha-mphis teha-na-see. ---Meaner

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:49:33 AM CDT

    a cynical suggestion

    by vinnieb

    It has been suggested by folks close to the production that Bob Zmuda has been keeping Andy's dream alive by keeping this movie swamped in hoaxes and fake stories. The folks at the Andy Kaufman home page (located at http://andykaufman.jvlnet.com/) are pretty sure the "multiple ending" story was one of Bob's gags. Is it POSSIBLE this is as well? I mean, the names attached to this film (Forman, Carrey, DeVito, et al) should provide the political clout to get the film released, not to mention at least get the film some small interest. So while I would not be surprised to hear such news, I would also not be surprised to hear that Zmuda is just keeping the pot stirred...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:50:15 AM CDT

    Don't you wish...

    by odelay

    Great kick ass letter Harr, I'm with you 100%! Secondly, I'd just like to say that I wish all the artists that make the movies we love, were able to take care of all the marketing as well as the film itself. When movies are turned over to dumb-ass executives who aren't artists, we get the royal screw and sometimes we lose much of what we want to see. I know Jim Carrey is more than just a comedian, and I hope those SOBs at the studio let him express himself the way he wants to. No one wants to see Jim do Ace Ventura over and over. He knows this and hes trying to be a real all around actor. Its a great thing!! VIVA AICN!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:51:06 AM CDT

    Don't you wish...

    by odelay

    Great kick ass letter Harr, I'm with you 100%! Secondly, I'd just like to say that I wish all the artists that make the movies we love, were able to take care of all the marketing as well as the film itself. When movies are turned over to dumb-ass executives who aren't artists, we get the royal screw and sometimes we lose much of what we want to see. I know Jim Carrey is more than just a comedian, and I hope those SOBs at the studio let him express himself the way he wants to. No one wants to see Jim do Ace Ventura over and over. He knows this and hes trying to be a real all around actor. Its a great thing!! VIVA AICN!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:53:45 AM CDT

    Damn Right!!!

    by gatsby

    Yeah Harry!!! That's what this site is here for! As for Universal--Sure, the last couple of years have been rough, but right now you're coasting on the Mummy and Notting Hill, and American Pie looks like it may have one of the biggest profit margins of the summer. Do you really want to fuck that up with another Out of Sight fiasco, where everyone can say, "Aaaah, Universal--they're okay w/comedy's and crappy effects pictures, but they couldn't sell a quality film if it fell on their faces and started to wiggle?" People are starving for something more than laughs and effects---Feed us!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 6:59:13 AM CDT

    We DEMAND to see this film soon!!!!!

    by mike d

    I truly do not understand Universal's logic here. They must be the only studio in the known universe that wants shelve an Oscar contender. A 'multiple' Oscar contender. Everything Harry says here is right on. Especially talking of Jim Carrey. Personally, I'm not a big, big fan of Carrey's. And I honestly thought THE TRUMAN SHOW was vastly overrated. But I did admire Jim Carrey taking on that type of role. I'd encourage that of any actor. Universal has to understand something. They're image of Carrey will be safe. The guy's not going stop making 'stupid-comedy' for a while. He's not gonna give it up for good just cuz he's doing a couple of dramatic flicks every now and then. But showing this kind of panic really does damage to your own studio, guys. Instead of being afraid of what you'll lose in Jim Carrey, why don't you show moivegoers around what the world what you've GAINED in him?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:01:42 AM CDT

    My god. Universal just be pissing everyone off today.

    by corran fox horn

    Universal is so messed up. They were doing good when they thought they were doing bad. Then they fire half a dozen people, reaped those person's sucess, and now are doing really good, but they're scared of what *WILL* be a huge hit and award-winning sucess. Andy Kaufman had an incredible and bizzare life, and from the looks of it the powerhouse talent behind this biopic nailed it just right. Paramount had chicken-shits flipping out about The Truman Show, but they got it right in the end. Keep this movie PG, if possible, and market it as a serious movie about a nutty guy, from Academy Award-Wininng Director Milos Forman, the Screenwriters of Ed Wood, and the Golden Gloe Winer for Best Actor of 1998, Jim Carrey. Man on the Moon. it's simple. Fools. PS - go to www.thespotlight.cx, you won't be sorry. ;)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:29:51 AM CDT

    Harry Continues To Climb Closer To The Coveted Status of Periphe

    by henry chinaski

    Hey Harry, I agree with you that it would be a refreshing change for a major studio to go ahead and release a flick with a downer ending, despite the advice of the bean counters. However, for you, the great (and I mean Great Big) Harry Knowles to actually respond to a Talkback (I know it has happened before a few times, but it is rare) concerning your knowledge of studio executives' knowledge of strong films smacks of desperation. Sure, you might have read the script, but, you sad excuse for a player, you sure as hell haven't seen the flick. And your disappointing cut and paste information for The People Vs. Larry Flynt from the IMDB demonstrates you are only as cutting edge as the information that the public and the industry provides you. Please don't forget you're just a fat film geek from Austin who decided to parlay his love of film into a cool public forum for the rest of us fat film geeks around the world. Your response to a troublemaking cynic like Nickarcel (or myself, for that matter) was so sad, desperate, and heart-rending. Pay attention to the site, you geek, Universal hates you just as much as they hate the rest of us with a passion for film. "I know because it's what I do!" That quote made me laugh so fucking hard. You self-important deluded with illusions of grandeur clown! What you do is answer your phone and cut and paste e-mail you've received from the true people in the know and it kills you that you're not more deeply involved. "I could've gone to one of the preview screenings of Episode I, but I turned down the pass. I am such a true fan!" Hang on, Harry, we're all going to hoist you on our shoulders. Like I said, hang on, it might take a little while. Just another example of how you have to rely on others to make what little connections to the film industry you have. And far as telling the others to educate themselves, I am educated to the fucking gills with film theory and film history, as well as english literature. No less than you, Harry. I simply rely on your site for the info I need; just like I rely on Coming Attractions, ShowBizWire, Drew's Script-O-Rama, IMDB, The Force.net, and all the others I haven't mentioned. Don't forget your geek roots, geek, we never will. The only positive thing about your fat head is that it is now proportionate with your fat ass. This rant is not based on envy, all of us geeks struggle with the knowledge that the endless useless trivia stuffed inside our heads won't earn us a fucking dime in the real world, it is based on the opinion that this site is heading down the crapper because you are more deeply involved in becoming a player (you may have even deluded yourself because of Premiere's hopelessly out of date the moment it hits the stands Top 100 list) than in making this previously outstanding site stronger and more informative than it ever was. How's Pauly Shore, Harry? How's your quest for that porn star girlfriend going? We're all curious. More curious than hearing about why you are so cool. "I know because it's what I do." Holy Mother of God, pure fucking early morning comedy!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:38:01 AM CDT

    Remember we represent like 0.001% of the film going audience

    by spike lee

    This is not the 70's anymore, the last golden age of film, studios do not want to take any chances. Andy Kaufman was a dark mystery! Universal wants more jokes so they can cash in on the baby boomer audience around the holiday season, they want another Patch Adams not Amadeus. Unfortuneatly, studios dont care about having a great film, they only care about the box office. Bio pics have always been a tough sell, and always depended on the award process to generate box office. This is why Universal is holding out. I would not be suprised if this film is not released somewhere around January 2000.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:41:24 AM CDT

    Kill middle management

    by damaj

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:45:03 AM CDT

    The one Carrey film I was waiting for

    by colleen

    For years I couldn't stand Jim Carrey films. He spoiled Batman Returns for me more than any individual element. Was it because I thought JC was without talent? No, I remember some of his earlier projects, and knew he was very talented indeed. I just can't stand his over the top self indulgent so-called humour as evidenced in Ace Ventura. I actually didn't mind The Cable Guy, and the Truman Show was an excellent film. Why? Because they let the actor act. Now, along comes Man in the Moon, and the possibility is presented to see ol' Jim really show his chops. I want to see this film!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:46:36 AM CDT

    Um....

    by uga

    Harry, if you worship the guy so much, at least spell his name right: FORMAN.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:58:42 AM CDT

    Kill middle management

    by damaj

    When exactly did it happen? When did the powers that be take this Shadow over Innsmouth (hence, another example) nosedive into letting suit-and-tie wearing business degree pricks with a trust fund make crucial decisions (or any decisions) about what goes into a work of art? When in the hell did this spiral out of control? Does it open any of your eyes that Lucas, rather than put himself at the mercy of some Ivy League marketing machine, spends millions of his own fortune --just so you won't be able to say "Well, this scene needs less of this . . . " (and no flames about the quality of TPM -- that's a different talkback). Here's a brainstorm -- let's let directors do what you pay them to do. As I said before, I don't know exactly when it was when something as dear to so many as the film making process spiralled out of control and into the hands of people who use their "creative impetus" for an entirely different calling.
    And you other talkbackers call Harry envious? He's just like us. We want good movies. THey're for us. We want them back. It's these middle management "creative consultants" who are the envious ones. No one will trust them enough to helm a movie, but they've got just enough power to fuck it up.
    And they say --- well, look at movie X ---or let's just say --- the Mummy -- a decent movie -- mildly entertaining ---but it made a lot of money. These briefcase bastards may say, "Well, the Mummy did great. That's what people want. Let's take this movie and that movie and make more like the Mummy!!"
    Well, you know what? The reason so many movies do so well is not because they're great movies. No, I'm sorry to disappoint you. It's because there is nothing else out there. As far as mainstream releases go, it's so polluted with crap that we can't find anything great anymore. So when something mediocre like the Mummy comes along, we go see it in droves. Why?? Because it's the least mediocre of the bunch.
    These are the guys that Lucas is avoiding --- just read the interviews. These are the guys that took a rich, wellspring of material like the Batman franchise and turned it into this . . . this. . . well, you know what they did. "Oh, but Arkham, that was WB, not Universal."
    Sure, right, but these days . . . they're all the same.
    You see, movies are a work of art -- a creative surge from within the film-maker --- not unlike paintings, sculptures, or music.
    What would have happened to, say -- the Mona Lisa, if Da Vinci had some guy in a suit saying, "you know . . . let's make her a little more colorful and cute. . . something that would make a good Happy Meal toy."??

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 8:08:34 AM CDT

    oh realllllllllllllly

    by stalker

    I think everyone in Hollywood has no idea of the difference between their ass's and a coat rack. (if that makes sence)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 8:36:27 AM CDT

    D'Oh!

    by anton_sirius

    I hope Vinnie B. has it right- that this is yet another in-the-spirit hoax a la the Jerry Lawler story. But our reactions show just how much faith we all have in Universal, don't they? WE MUST NOT LET THEM FORGET BABE:PITC. They f****d up and we cannot let them off the hook for it- or let them do it again without howling for blood.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Really, how many of Universal's execs do you think come by here so often to read up on movie rumors 'cause they're geeks? Come on! And, why don't we get some REAL news on this site anymore? It's either some editorial saying how you feel about something 'cause it reminded you of your childhood, or a blatantly stupid rumor that I coulda pulled outta my ass!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 8:54:32 AM CDT

    Universal Has No Balls!

    by ccox67

    Universal,
    We are all looking forward to this picture. Don't mess it up. Like Harry said just because Jim's broadening his horizons doesn't mean he won't still do some funny stuff and be a box office draw. Tom Hanks still has time to do a few You've Got Mail's in between the Forest Gumps and Saving Private Ryans.
    If you wanna change the movie, your asking for it. And, Milos, and Jim have so many supporterse that it will cause more phone calls and protests to your offices then ever!
    Why couldn't Miramax have done the movie!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 9:03:37 AM CDT

    Someone Tell R.E.M.

    by rodent

    Perhaps the band who's song graces
    the films title could have some
    pull in allowing it to be released
    with little editing.

    Rodent (putting the eek in geek)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 9:38:21 AM CDT

    Man On THe Moon

    by the guy

    I happened to see the movie at a test screening in Connecticut last month, and let me tell you, The suits have every reason to worry. When we got the flier to see the movie, we were told by NRG that they were testing a new movie with a major star in it. On the day of the screening when I found out what the movie was, I was excited as all hell. Until the 10 minute mark of the movie.
    This movie was painfully bad to watch. At least 20 people walked out during the first half hour. Part of the reason was, since this movie starred Jim Carrey as a comedian, everyone expected it to be funny. Didn't work. Then I tried to look at it with an open mind, and the movie was never interesting, or moving enough as a drama to hold anyone's attention. Another 15-20 people walked out. I stayed and endured the longest 2 and a half hours of my bloody life. This movie maybe could've worked, if another actor may have been cast. A good comparison would be, what if Robin Williams would've been cast in The King Of Comedy instead of DeNiro? It probably wouldn't have worked. Unlike that movie, this one was very flat, and very boring. Universal Suits be afraid. Be very afraid.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:15:15 AM CDT

    Flip63Hole

    by mean ween

    i agree with you that anyone complaining about this site should just not come here, BUT, don't kid yourself. Mother Harry Theresa isn't "slaving" away for our benefit. He's doing it for himself. Not that there's anything wrong with that either. He obviously loves what he's doing. And we enjoy it too. When his fingertips start bleeding maybe I'll concede.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:28:13 AM CDT

    why universal will never allow this movie to be released as is

    by jughead55

    universal is a soulless behemoth that makes an occasional accidental masterpiece. their best two movies of the last few years were unanticipated. with babe 2 and out of sight they were just trying to make a children's sequel and a movie with that "er" guy. and with man on the moon they just saw this as a jim carrey vehicle by the guy who did the people vs. larry flynt. all milos forman is to them is a name to put on a poster. the only reason they hired courney love is because they'll want to put a hole song on the soundtrack. and the only reason that they hired jim carrey is because he's a star. all they want to do is put out movies that they can convert into theme park rides. in fact, on sunset in hollywood where some second unit man on the moon footage was shot, a billboard with jim carrey as andy kaufman was actually replaced by an ad for the t2:3d ride. as much as we want this movie to be left alone, we might as well forget about it until the criterion collection version comes out.

    Reply to Talkback

  • i'll just wait and then, if i find some time, might check it out just because of Foreman.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:33:05 AM CDT

    ED WOOD is terrible

    by 305402-2

    But "Larry Flynt" is great. How could Scott and Larry write such a bad film and, three years later, such a great one?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:33:53 AM CDT

    in the immortal words...

    by anacin

    "Movies are not supposed to entertain... Movies are supposed to scar."
    - David Fincher

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:49:54 AM CDT

    RE: Henry Chinaski

    by kirin

    You're in tremendous pain Henry--I know because I've been there. I'm praying for you.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:58:45 AM CDT

    Nobody Got Kaufman When He Was Alive.....

    by mrbeaks

    .....why would they suddenly get him now. I'm glad Universal hasn't a clue as to how this film should be marketed; sounds like Milos & co. did their job. As for theguy above..... didn't Harry say Universal was apprehensive about screening MAN ON THE MOON? Are you, perhaps, lying? If you aren't, are you at all familiar with Kaufman's work? That might explain your acerbic reaction to the film. You're just like those Jerry Lawler fans who wanted Andy's head, which means that you're part of the punchline. As for Universal..... what do you expect? They're the studio without a chief! Idiocy reigns! They've lucked into a few hits (courtesy of the prior regime, much like Canton's post-firing legacy at Sony,) and they're scared of ending up with another VIRUS. I don't always agree with Harry (like last week's thrashing of Donaldson,) but he's dead on about this flick. Trust Forman. The man deserves final cut, unlike the modestly talented Marty Brest who, along with the pig flick, ruined your Thanksgiving with the deservedly reviled MEET JOE BLACK.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:01:20 AM CDT

    no no no no no

    by severian

    When I saw the title to this article, I got very scared because it meant that something bad was going down between the studios and Man on the Moon. Uggh, and it's true. With all the good things I've been hearing about this movie, this revelation has me foaming at the mouth. I just hope the people who were actually involved in the movie fight it as hard as they can. Of all the upcoming movies, this is the one that I really want to do good, now that Episode 1 is out. I guess the studio people don't realize that this could be the best thing in the world for Jim Carrey's career. Even better than the Truman Show. I think that it could actually make his comedies more successful. Think about it. If he can get the high-brows into him, as he's already begun to do with Truman, they won't be so quick to put him down when he does his silly comedies (which I've always liked--even The Cable Guy). I wish this TalkBack could be the longest ever. There needs to be outrage over this. I believe that Man on the Moon has so much potential to be great. "I'll sue you all!!" --Andy Kaufman

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:15:06 AM CDT

    What the hell do you EXPECT??

    by w. leach

    I posted earlier about MAN ON THE MOON, but after reading some of these Talkbacks, I felt the need to post again. First off, I hope this story is, as an earlier poster suggested, a publicity stunt by Kaufman's collaborator Bob Zmuda. Wishful thinking, I know, but still, we can't rule it out. Secondly, I wholeheartedly applaud the casting of Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman, which was a very risky move, but one I'm sure will pay off. When I first heard about this project last year in the pages of Entertainment Weekly, I read in horror at some of the actors who were interested in playing Kaufman: Kevin Spacey, John Cusack, Edward Norton, and Nicolas Cage. There's nothing wrong with these actors, but none of them, I don't think, could pull off Andy Kaufman. It would be the old Anthony Hopkins as Richard Nixon thing again. Try as I may (after seeing NIXON about three times), I could never get the real Richard Nixon in my mind. I only saw Anthony Hopkins. The only name who I thought was worthy of playing Andy was Jim Carrey, also mentioned in the EW article. I thought to myself, Carrey would be too perfect to play the bug-eyed Andy, but it probably won't happen. It will be another case of a perfect actor missing the boat. Luckily, a few months later, the same magazine said Carrey was signed, and that made me very happy. Carrey will be absolutely brilliant. Reading these Talkbacks, I noticed a couple of people have already seen MAN ON THE MOON. One poster said some people got up and walked out during the film. What the hell did they expect? Carrey to talk out of his ass? Carrey to do that wild slapstick he's been doing since his stand-up days? Carrey to utter a new catchphrase? Jim Carrey can't play Jim Carrey forever. MAN ON THE MOON is the film that will really put him over the top as a serious actor, and people actually LEFT during the run? Christ, I'd give my left arm to see this movie today. I don't understand why its taking so long to get to the theater. Which brings me to my next beef: why, in 1999, are studios STILL having previews before they release their babies out into the world? Previews of new movies have been around almost as long as the movies themselves. This practice usually hurts the film rather than help it. Previews should have died when the sound era came in (then maybe we would have a Frankenstein who actually dies instead of lives to tell the story; maybe Cary Grant could have been a murderer in SUSPICION instead of forcing Hitchcock to tack on a cheesy, happy ending; maybe Seymour and Audrey could have become plant food in LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, instead of marrying and living happily ever after). These three films were marred after test audiences thumbed their noses at them, God knows how many more suffered the same fate. Just because a few people don't like a movie doesn't mean that I won't like it. Who are they to tell me what to like and what not to like? What are we, robots? Do the studios assume we represent those people who see the test screenings? As I mentioned in my earlier post, MAN ON THE MOON is the movie I'm most looking forward to this year. It's my PHANTOM MENACE. I scour the net looking for bits of information on it, but usually come up with nothing. I'm DYING to see MAN ON THE MOON!! But I want to see it in its original, dark form, the way Scott Alexander, Larry Karaszewski, Milos Forman, and Jim Carrey made it. This isn't too much to ask, is it?

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:24:58 AM CDT

    Here's a fantasy version of the trailer...

    by w. leach

    Okay, one more post, then I'll leave. Somebody mentioned a trailer in a post. I think a cool trailer would be this: the Universal logo. A black screen. We hear the scratchy silence of the beginning of a record. Music begins. The Mighty Mouse theme song. Open on Jim Carrey as Andy Kaufman, standing next to the player, wide-eyed and fidgeting. Kaufman opens his mouth, confident, on the line "Here I come to save the day!" and stands still again. Blackout. That's my idea of the ideal trailer for MAN ON THE MOON: short and strange.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:51:12 AM CDT

    yikes

    by -z-

    Hmmmm, from what I've heard, this movie doesn't sound like it'll be all that great. Especially after reading what THE GUy had to say about it. I can totally see that scenario happening. Whether or not you like Forman's work, you must admit it has a tendency to DRAG. Yes it does. I like his stuff, but with the wrong actor, this movie could be a terrible P.O.S. And so far, Carrey has not proven himself to be anything but a comedic actor. The Truman show was VASTLY overated and truthfully would've been much better with a better actor. Yeah yeah sure, it's great for someone to not be a "one trick pony" but sometimes that's all an actor is and there is NOTHING wrong with that. How many of you want to see William Hurt as an action star? How many of you want to see Jerry Seinfeld as a dramatic actor? Nevertheless, I must agree with some of the earlier stuff. Yeah let the movie come out, let the chips fall where they will. If it's a piece of crap, maybe that will send a message to Carrey. And maybe Forman too.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:56:30 AM CDT

    I Jim Carrey right fot this role?

    by dirtfish

    Can Jim really pull off a convinceable Andy Kaufman?
    If I was in charge of MOTM I would have cast an actor that could actualy act, rather than Jim Carrey who is just after that oscar! I think Ving Rhames could do a good job. Look at what he did with the Don King film, I thought he was Don. Plus he also has a comedic flair as he proved in Striptease.
    Come on Milo admit you made a mistake!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 11:58:10 AM CDT

    happy meals

    by nickerson

    Arkham -- George Lucas spends his own money so that he won't be at the mercy of a marketing machine that would tell him to make things more colorful and cute, things that would make good Happy Meal toys? Yeah, right. Lucas, the self-styled independent filmmaker, a bastion of integrity who would never stoop to brazen market-driven commercialization. A real maverick, he. Art reduced to trash by greed has many faces, not just that of marketing departments.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:04:39 PM CDT

    latka

    by lerner

    Andy Kaufman was a genius. He was so involved in his creativity that his own friends doubted his death, figuring it was same old Andy. Jim Carrey is a great candidate for the role and will most likely shine. Forman knows how to draw great performaces from his actors. Look at Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito to name a few in One Flew . . Woody Harrelson and Courtney Love in The People. .
    Universal does not market their films correctly. Look at the fiasco that was the marketing campaign for Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, a GREAT movie saddled with a horrific weekend release schedule and a horrible campaign. Out of Sight was terrific and same problem. Look at the film and use your brains to figure out how to really perk the interest of the public. Kaufman was a great talent and many people want to see his story. As for Carrey, we all know that he can act. Besides Truman, his performance in Doing Time on Maple Drive speaks volumes. Not everyone wants to see him repeatedly talk out of his buttcheeks. He is funny but many would like to see him continue to stretch. All the executives at Universal should think about that before they compromise for the "demographic charts" yet again.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:11:12 PM CDT

    Harry vs. Henry

    by quiscustodiet

    I don't know what's sadder Harry's seeming sense of self-importance or the self-importance of Henry to criticize Harry for the same!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:16:03 PM CDT

    Yes!

    by rolande

    At least everyone's finished getting their Jedi-roo panties in a bunch over
    the crapfest Phantom Menace. It's good to see a fresh topic up here, even if the dead
    horse is getting beaten once again. Studio sucks, movie will change your life if released
    as is, blah blah. What, like 3 people have seen screenings and everyone's making brownies in their
    pants about this already? Get shaggy baby, Austin II in a week!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:16:37 PM CDT

    Well said, Henry C.

    by efihp

    I agree completely with everything you said.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:25:10 PM CDT

    Anacin

    by quiscustodiet

    "If movies aren't entertainment, what are they, punishment?" Pauline Kael. Try quoting someone who isn't a complete hack!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:37:01 PM CDT

    nickerson -- RE:happy meals

    by damaj

    No, no -- you're completely right. It wasn't my intention to use Lucas as the epitome of integrity. His creations are designed to be marketable little nuggets, but he did it himself. My point wasn't that he was going his own way, BUT that he did it himself. He paid his own fare so that no one else could tell him HOW to do it. Even if it is over commercialized Ewoks revisited crap. . .

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 12:46:37 PM CDT

    My letter to Universal

    by the graduate

    Three words for you: release this film. Listen, 1999 looks to be the year of a major comeback for your studio. You already have two certified hits, THE MUMMY and NOTTING HILL, and the summer's just started. With the good buzz about some of your summer flicks, looks like you'll have a banner year. Take a chance on a film that doesn't fit neatly into a genre. Listen, I'm 23, and a year ago all I knew about Andy Kaufman was that REM made a song about him. Then I started to hear buzz about this picture. About how Jim Carrey refused to break character between takes. About how everyone on the set called him "Andy." About how he did the routines dead on. One night watch E! I caught the documentary, and realized, "Oh, this is who Jim Carrey is playing!" And the footage was weird. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to laugh at what the man was doing. But I couldn't stop watching. I wanted to know more about him. People were saying he was dead--how could that be? If this guy was such a peculiar talent, what happened to him? I was dying to know. And I still am. Listen, Universal. It's not about cash. You'll have plenty of that by Christmastime. It's about a unique film by a highly acclaimed director which might, just might shed light on a misunderstood genius. It stars Jim Carrey, a fellow who showed off his acting chops in THE TRUMAN SHOW but by all accounts has done something completely different here. People will accept Carrey in a semi-serious role, the same way they do Robin Williams. Imagine if that Oscar-winner had been slapped by suits who didn't think the "Mork and Mindy" star could handle a film about Vietnam. This could be your GOOD MORNING VIETNAM--a film, starring a comedian, about a real life jokester who wasn't understood and went through some hard times. Release it in November; don't worry about going on 4,000 screens. The buzz will be there, and you'll be primed for Oscar noms. And if half of what I've heard is true, they'll come.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 1:04:35 PM CDT

    Geeks Get A Clue!

    by nuschool

    Wow-- I guess everybody had some free time in between Star Trek marathons to get on line, scope some porn and post foolish bullshit in the talkback. Scream all you want folks, but if you haven't seen the fucking movie you look like a moron soap boxing a final cut defense for Milos. Do you all have to swing from Harry's nuts with each "Artistic Integrity" essay he posts here to make up for a lack of real cool news. It's like this see-- execs do not ruin films. Directors do not hand in masterpieces and then we "Asshole Executives" work out our lack of talent by bastardizing them. The process of making films and making films work involves more than allowing the director to speak his voice. Fuck-- if a director wants to speak his voice maybe Harry can loan out his soap box for a minute. Sometimes directors can't see the flaws in their new baby. And they get all pissy when uncle sales agent calls the baby ugly. Well guess what? In the end all that matters is if the movie will play to a big enough audience to warrent spending the money on getting it out there. Now, you film geeks might be physically big enough, but there really are not enough of you to make a film a hit. Sorry. Its a fact. So bitch and whine and moan all you want in the talkbacks about how evil Universal is and how they keep fucking up-- the fact of the matter is, you got to see Babe 2 and Out Of Sight didn't you? You got to enjoy viewing it-- what does it matter to you that it didn't make millions of dollars? Or that Universal mismarketed it. Would your viewing have been better if you knew some fat guy in Austin was also enjoying it? Take a little movie called LA CUCARACHA. Harry and the boys saw it down at the Austin film Festival and loved it. Great! And you know what? It won the best picture award. Fantastic! So, then what happened to this amazing film? Well nobody wanted to distribute it cuz "the asshole execs" couldn't see how to sell it. I'm sure Harry would default to his usual approach to film distribution-- "Put it out there and us film geeks will come..." Well, shit Harry, sell the site and move on up here and tell how to do it. Eventually the movie sold to a tiny distributor named White Rose. They knew that no arthouse audience was going to see an Eric Roberts movie, so they sold it as a sexy Mexican thriller and opened it in a few Latino populated cities to less than steller box office bizness. Now I'm sure Harry and some of his sack monkeys would point the finger at the execs and claim that they ruined the prospects of this great film and mis-marketed it and blah-dy-blah-blah. Well at least it sold. Thats the bottom line. Nobody wanted to distribute the picture for about a year. Some execs got into a room with the director and went over his baby and nipped and tucked and yes changed the director's baby into something different, but those changes enabled the film to get distro-- Those changes the execs FORCED upon the director got his movie out to the public. Otherwise it would have been a $3 million dollar home movie. So fuck all of you little keyboard jockeys who spout shit at those of us behind the scenes. We are not all evil and some of us even know how to do our jobs.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 1:04:44 PM CDT

    Another take

    by rivulus

    I must say, I reviewed the script for Jim Carrey Online quite a while back. I thought it was an incredible treatment. For months now, JCO has been waiting to see what kind of marketing/promo stunts Universal and even Jim Carrey himself would work up, considering the subject of the film. I saw this above mentioned rumor last week on "Mr. Showbiz Confidential." It brought a question to my mind. What was Andy Kaufman known for? Ground-breaking comedy and fooling the audience. Has anyone considered that maybe the best type of advertising for this film is not good word of mouth, but implications of it being a disaster? Like a car wreck, we humble people are drawn to films like this for one reason - we have a morbid curiosity to go see the thing - to see how bad it really is. Frankly, this self-depreciating film rumor sounds right up Kaufman's ally, as he would set himself up to be mercilessly heckled on stage. There have been SEVERAL pranks pulled concerning this film already. Do you believe they put a man on the moon? Anyway, I talked to Universal's PR last week, and she informed me that Universal is very pleased with the film, and that Jim Carrey's performance is "amazing."

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 1:37:40 PM CDT

    Peter Sellers...

    by pseudo

    Peter Sellers is probably best known to the great unwashed masses as being a comedic actor. One hears his name and thinks of The Pink Panther series. But Sellers, much like many of the actors named by my fellow respondees (Williams, Martin, Cage), did some of his most remarkable work when not doing stright comedies. If anyone questions this go down to your local video store and hope they have "Being There." Watch it, oh studio executives, and realize that "comic actors" are capable of doing incredible work if given the chance. I've been waiting to see Carrey stretch for years now and was pleased with the glimpse I got in The Truman Show, and Cable Guy. Let the man show the world he's a talented (possibly genius) actor.
    Cheers.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 1:47:58 PM CDT

    Passin' it on

    by frohike0116

    FYI -- just e-mailed today's main page to a contact at Universal..y'never know

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 1:51:22 PM CDT

    Hey NuSchool

    by rocqueja

    If you're such a brilliant film executive what the hell are you doing here in the middle of the day! And if Harry is so uninfluential, why are you here? Are you slumming? I can't imagine one exec who has time in their busy day to slum with the likes of us geeks. Oh right, you've adopted a persona in between visits to farmsexxx.com to berate Harry and his ilk, and you are equally as much of a geek as the rest of us. Christ, film exec, my ass!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:07:31 PM CDT

    Gauntlet Thrown... And Caught

    by anton_sirius

    OK, NuSchool, I was with you until you brought up the pig movie. I was nodding along, "Yes, sometimes execs are useful, sometimes they make the changes necessary to get a film out to the public in the first place...", but then you brought the pig movie into it. Nu, Nu, Nu. UNIVERSAL FUCKED UP. It happens. Just admit it. Sometimes even studio executives- bastions of taste, intelligence and sound moral judgement that they are- make horrendous mistakes. Sure, I got to see the movie. Me and twelve other people in North America. I haven't felt that alone in a theatre since Hudson Hawk. But there were MILLIONS of other people who didn't get to see it on the big screen- people who would have greatly enjoyed it- because Universal ran an abysmally bad campaign. They released the movie at perhaps the worst possible time, with bad and nearly invisible ads, and then let it twist in the wind when some (NOT all) self-righteous, short-sighted critics thought it was 'too dark' for the wee ones. They did all this to the follow-up to one of their biggest world wide hits of the last decade, a movie they had to be banking on (and rightly so) for nine-digits. MORONS. LACKWITS. HEATHENS. The Universal brain trust simply fucked up. And no matter how you try to defend them or justify their decisions, the box office total of Babe: Pig In The City says that I am right.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:13:35 PM CDT

    Universal: A Teenager's Plea.

    by doctor zaz

    Dear Universal Pictures Executives.
    How are you? Right now I am listening to Man on the Moon by REM. It's a great song. I love TAXI. I haven't seen it that many times but what I have seen I liked. It was cool. Andy was awesome.
    I'm a seventeen year old movie fan. You may say "So what 17 year old kid isn't a movie fan?" And I would say, "Good point."
    Well what makes me soemwhat different than my peers is that I really love movies. Some of my favorite movies are clasics. "Singin' In the Rain", "On the Waterfront", "Lawrence of Arabia", and "Ben-Hur".
    Most teenagers I know have not even seen these movies with the exception of "Ben-Hur", which they watched in grade 7 because "they had to."
    I watch the old movies because they are the ones that are the most interesting. They probe into the human psyche. They help you understand why people do what they do. And apparantly you have that kind of movie on your hands with "Man on the Moon".
    I don't know alot about Andy. But I would like to know more. And so I make this plea: "Do not, for the love of God Almighty, change the movie."
    Milos Forman is a talented director. "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is one of my favorite movies and I sing its praises to whoever will listen. And so that is another reason why I want to see "Man on the Moon" released in its latest form. I want to take my friends to it and say "This here is a great movie."
    And then I will point them to "Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus". I want my peers to be introduced to great cinema. With Forman and Kubrick in the same year, I am truly blessed. And I want to point my friends to the light. Forman knows what he is doing.
    I want to see Jim Carrey not be Jim Carrey. I loved "The Truman Show", and if this is the movie that catapults him to the Oscar podium, then all the better.
    From what I hear you have an Oscar contender on your hands. "So for the love of God, don't screw up."
    I know you guys and gals have made good movies in the past. "Babe", "Out of Sight" and others are just some of your recent beauties.
    Please do not change a thing of this movie. Even if I think (God forbid) this is crap when it comes out, at least I will have seen it as it should be and not some twisted bastard Forman film that you may have ruined yourself.
    Trust Forman. Not your marketers. They have screwed up royally recently. As Harry said, all you have to say "From the Oscar Winning Director of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' Milos Forman."
    That would get me into the theater, seeing "Oscar winning" on a poster always does.
    I'll bring all my friends to it regardless but please for the sake of teenagers who know what good movies really are, release it as is and soon.

    Sincerely

    Dan Revill
    dr_zaz@punkass.com

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:15:34 PM CDT

    This SUCKS!!!!!!!!

    by tbrown

    If Universal does not keep the movie the way it is, there gonna mess it up bad. I want to see a screening before they do mess it up

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:17:56 PM CDT

    Forman Films The Phone Book

    by rebeck


    I don't always agree with Harry, but he couldn't be more right here. This is exactly what's wrong with the film biz right now. I don't care what the execs think, I care only what Forman thinks is good. The execs are nobodies, Forman is the filmmaker that made "Ragtime" (greatly underrated), "Hair" (sheer joy) and, "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", which is...well, the word "perfection" comes to mind. Have you ever heard anyone NOT like that movie? (OK, Harry wanted it off the Top 100 list a while back, but given this new rant of his, I take it he has seen the error of his ways). Forman is one of the all-time greats. And he's a populist! His films are never anything but completely engaging and entertaining. So what's the problem??? Universal people, if you're reading this... Grab a pair, and release the damn film. You can feel stupid later on at the Academy Awards.

    Reply to Talkback

  • The major studio's just seem to get worse and worse, they have ABSOLUTELY no trust or respect for the audience. The audience that has made Ace Ventura and The Mask successes are not gonna come to this but another untapped segment of the audience will support it just like The Truman Show and One Flew Over The Cukoos Nest. Not all the movie going audience only wants mindless consumer entertainment, that's why Disney's around. As long as Universal doesn't pretend this movie is something that it's not, they'll be fine. By the way, I'm sure that NO Universal execs have even heard of this site, will read this article and talkbacks and will follow our advice which is why they will continue losing money until they're BANKRUPT.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:21:56 PM CDT

    Rocqueja On My Nutz

    by nuschool

    Nice to see that your response is more concerned with my employment than my point. Look, I'm not saying I run this town with my golden rod-- but I think this site works best when it steers clear of straight-up self-rightous "Open Letters" and sticks with the news and responses. Obviously the site has value and I appreciate being able to use it as a resource. But on occasion, the geeks start screaming about shit they have no clue about. An opinion is good. An informed opinion is better. Now I'm gonna go download some of my new Donkeylove mpegs. (See I'm an exec at a small rural company....)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:35:56 PM CDT

    Universal doesn't suck..

    by one eyed sigmund

    Hey, you all have to admit Universal has some of the biggest balls of all the studios. Warner's obviously has the littlest. Uni was able to release Babe 2 (which is a great film) and they didn't change George Miller's dark tone one bit. They gave Martin Brest final cut on Joe Black, which was a terrible choice seeing how the film turned out, but it's a final cut to Martin Brest for christ sake. I think they'll handle Forman okay. And they're letting American Pie turn into a classic with some scenes that most studios would walk away from. They probably have the most artistic people in town on their lot and that has to be admired. MAN ON THE MOON is going to be whatever it is, with or without studio interruption. Take a movie that was seriously fucked with, like DISTURBING BEHAVIOR. No matter how much pull they gave whoever directed that, it would still suck. Some movies just suck, and all the suits try to do is save face on those. They are actually doing really well at that. They know good movies, it's just that they're aren't that many of them out there. Make your own and see what happens. Later.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:56:13 PM CDT

    *lol* NuSchool

    by rocqueja

    All right, you made me laugh, NuSchool, something that hasn't happened on this page in a while. I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, and I am quite often (my typing gets ahead of my brain).

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 2:57:18 PM CDT

    Hey Universal, this movie is soooooooo easy to market!

    by cineman

    Okay, Universal. It's not that hard. People like to go see Jim Carrey movies when they are funny. Andy Kaufmann is a funny man. Just show Carrey doing some of his Kaufmann funniest Kauffman stuff from the movie and make sure EVERYONE knows it is Jim Carrey in the movie. Advertise your great support to like DeVito, Love, McDonald, whoever you think will help sell the film. Milos' name might help a little with the art crowd but most people won't care. Also, play up the wrestling parts. Wrestling is SOOOOO hot right now and if the fans see Carrey in the ring with Lawler, who is well known among the fans, they will flock to it. This is easy guys, calm down.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 3:18:20 PM CDT

    universal

    by d'artagnan

    I would think with Forman's prestige, he would get final cut. If he doesn't have final cut he could take a lesson from Terry Gilliam. When universal wanted to cut up Brazil, Gilliam screamed bloody murder to the press and forced universal to release his version. Universal has a history of being a terrible place for directors to make movies. Clint Eastwood was trilled to get out of his univeral contract back in the mid-70's after they had bungled the release of several of his films. I mean, univeral marketed The Beguiled as a civil war film, which it wasn't.
    Milos Forman is our greatest director at the moment. One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, Ragtime, Amadeus, The People vs Larry Flint, The Fireman's Ball, Loves of a Blonde are all great films. I prefer his version of Valmont than the Stephen Frears version of that story. We'll see if Forman gets his cut out by the end of the year, then we can decide who was right.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 3:29:53 PM CDT

    re: one eye...'s message

    by ccox67

    What the heck are you doing?
    Learn before you talk!
    Babe 2 was cut extensively (Mikey Rooney's clown scenes and scenes of mean animal abuse were cut much. They freaked when they saw Miller's oriiginal version.
    Meet Joe Black wasn't cut for one reason. The movie was so pointless Universal did know what to cut out.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 3:36:10 PM CDT

    Anton and On

    by nuschool

    Yep, Universal fucked up with Babe: Pig In The City alright. They made it. Why on earth would you make a sequel about a talking pig but give it the flava of Salo: 100 Days Of Sodom? Sure-- I liked the movie. But I'm not a 4-10 year old-- although I act like it. So yeah, companies can make poor bizness decisions-- but that isn't just a faceless army of execs muddling with the magic up in the black tower. They are individual people who make decisions they think are best. No different than the director who chooses to have an all CGI character say "Ex-Squeze Me?". Sometimes individuals make mistakes.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 3:36:26 PM CDT

    Could this all be bullshit?

    by fuad ramses

    I don't know if I'd be considered an optimist or a pessimist for taking this stance, but I really don't see Universal's execs getting that upset over this film.
    I'm not sure where you got your info on this one, but it just doesn't fly with me. Now, I'm not the one with the big time Hollywood spies in my back pocket, but it really wouldn't make much sense for the execs to be that worried over this film...unless it does bite. OR, this is all bullshit. C'mon Harry, by saying that the execs and marketing departments of Universal are incompetent, then you're saying that all of their successes (financial and critical successes) have been accidents. I doubt it. Let's say MOTM is freakin' fantastic. If that's the case, it'll probably pull in nominations for Forman, Carrey, the screenwriter, the caterer and whatever else. Nominations ALWAYS mean more business at the box office. I just don't buy the "all execs in Hollywood are morons" line, and if this movie is as good as you say it is in it's present form, I think they would see the potential in it. This just all sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I'm sure you'll swear up and down on the validity of your spies, but this wouldn't be the first time something didn't pan out on this page. True, I like a good rumor like everyone else, but because of the lashing you gave the execs at Universal, I hope this is a factual story for your sake.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 3:59:42 PM CDT

    Please, let Jim Carey become a dramatic force!

    by dennis

    I don't want to have to sit through another Ace Ventura movie. He's obviously talented, and I hate to see him waste it on screwball comedy. Well, knowing the studios they will probably f--- this one up, too. All we can hope for is a director's cut when they're done dumbing it down for the audience.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:04:48 PM CDT

    REM

    by remhuck

    Release this movie if only because REM did the soundtrack!!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:13:36 PM CDT

    Planet Earth Calling...

    by wombat

    Every post I see that tries to come up with a new slur for studio execs just makes me shake my head. The myth that Studio Execs are these heartless, soulless (black suit & hat, no doubt) suits whose main goal in life is to ruin the pristine vision of the tender yet integrity-ridden filmmaker (white suit & hat, if you please). Just not true, folks. Most of the post-ers don't even seem able to tell the difference between a production executive, a distribution executive and a marketing executive. I've worked as a floating temp at a studio, I've worked for some of these people, and y'know what? They're people JUST LIKE YOU AND ME. Now that you've foamed and lathered in outrage, that's not to say that these people aren't at times lousy, cowardly human beings who're incapable of doing their own dry-cleaning and treat their employees like slaves, but this is true of EVERY INDUSTRY, from CEO of GM down to 7-11 Manager. However, these people have a job, a responsibility to ensure that a film makes a return on its investment. If this concept is abhorrent to you, stick to novels. Stick to low-budget independent film. And remember, at Universal, Casey Silver lost his job because he allowed filmmakers Martin Brest and George Miller to do what they wanted without studio interference. Filmmakers are not infallible, I love some of Milos Forman's films, others I could do without. Don't you kinda wish a "suit" had tapped Lucas on the shoulder at some point and said, "Jesus, George, a) lose the Jamaican fish freak and b) why do we waste so much time on that damn pod race when we know the outcome before it starts?" and several other points that SOMEONE should have crammed in George's face? If you all are so concerned about films why not actually try to help market the films you like, and more importantly, SINK THE CRAPPY ONES! It takes more than snotty posts online, kids, it takes standing in front of ticket booths in shifts and telling people, "Don't see MOVIE X (The movie all the trades expect to win the weekend), go see MOVIE Y (The movie with the good reviews but unknown cast, director, whatever), or even STAY HOME PEOPLE, NO GOOD MOVIES OUT THIS WEEK! Get organized across the nation and do this a few months, and Hollywood WILL sit up and take note. Hit them where it hurts. But, then again, that requires getting up off the gigantic sprawling meatpans you call asses and actually going outside and speaking to people- A scary notion for many of you, I'm sure.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:19:27 PM CDT

    Re: your rambling

    by corran fox horn

    Jeez, this is the suckiest talkback in a while. Let me offer my personal spin on a few matters. Babe 2 was cut from Miller's original PG to G. It had a couple oddly brilliant parts to it, and it was an interesting exercise in set/art decoration, but over all it was just bizzare, and there was no way it warranted eighty million dollars or kids seeing it over Rugrats and A Bug's Life. And the didn't market it well, that's a fact. Universal totally dropped the ball on Out of Sight, instead focusing on Psycho (whoopee). We all make mistakes, let's look to the future. I really don't care about Man in the Moon. I'd love to see it, but if I don't, or if it sucks, I won't be mentally or psychically injured in anyway. I'll just let it play out. If a Kaufman biopic was a huge manstream hit, then I'd be worried that maybe Forman didn'tdo his job right. As for the Mummy, it is not mediorce thou aloof dicks (no offense). It was a great looking and very fun movie, and worth it's ticket a time a lot more then movies like Election, SLC Punk!, or any other small film.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 4:47:31 PM CDT

    p-o-m-p-o-u-s

    by klickink

    the great thing about america, - hell, the internet - is everyone can express their own inflated opinion. while i support you and your success i think your reverence for milos, and 'cube'ric, and others, is silly. citing LARRY FLYNT because if its nominations and awards...that is really silly. the movie sucked. the whole point of the movie was let people be what they are, do what they like, that it is our right and as long as we don't physically harm anyone that doesn't ask for it, was so convulted and unclear, the 'film' came across as a 'huh, what's that all about' roll of processed oil.
    it sucked! yeah, CUCKOO'S is one of the all time greats. but one great act does not define a person. milos is human. a human with an opinion. who expresses it with art.
    and while i love CUCKOO'S and WONDERFUL LIFE and ORDINARY PEOPLE(my personal #1)and all other great films, goddamn it i like great 'movies' like DIE HARD and WIND AND THE LION and THE TIME MACHINE and ROBIN HOOD, that don't say a lot about anything, but inspires on more basic levels, like the heart instead of the brain.
    while i do hope MAN ON THE MOOON is released as milos created it, i also hope you get a grip on reality. how many times will you see it the first month of release, compared to TPM this month, no matter how much more of a great film it is than TPM is a great 'movie'? and won't you see 'cube'ric's PORNO flick a dozen times simply 'cause you want to see nicole orgasmic? you're only human, the suits at UNIVERSAL are only human. you're not better than anyone else and neither am I or the next guy. do you honestly think the suits are sweating over what you say on the NET? you think you're going to flex your muscle and have an effect? come on. milos can handle it. carey can handle it. you're just stressing and methinks you need to get laid. fall in love with something you can caress, nurture, appreciate, share with....
    there are not 'millions' of kaufman fans out there dying to see this flick. i imagine that many people who come to see it will find themselves asking what the hell they liked about his comedy anyway. the man was so caught up in his own mind....
    he was human, just like all the rest of us. good, bad, indifferent.
    CAN YOU TELL I AIN'T BEEN LAID IN THREE AND HALF YEARS????
    get laid, harry. you'll feel much better....
    alllowercase @ http://rampages.onramp.net/~klickink

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:33:28 PM CDT

    Who's Swinging From Who's Nuts?

    by mrbeaks

    While your audition for the Junior Exec program at Universal has been rather amusing, allow me to address why so many of us are in agreement with Harry. I'm sure execs try very, very hard to make the right decisions, but the fact is most of them are nothing but Griffin Mills in training. They're power hungry, obscenely overpaid imbeciles (most of whom lack a college degree,) who make decisions based solely upon which star they can snag. How else can you explain the WATERWORLD debacle, where your heroes at Universal rushed into a production, initially budgeted at $100 million, to be shot on water without a finished script? They were so blinded by their excitement of having landed Costner (who hadn't had a hit since 1992's THE BODYGUARD at that point,) that nothing else mattered; although, I'm sure the boys over on the Fox lot, mindful of their ABYSS experience, were more than amused (that is, until that batch of numbskulls went and greenlit SPEED 2. Yet another example of the rampant idiocy at work in Hollywood.) I guess my point is, when it comes to a film like MAN ON THE MOON, we're skeptical as to how these jokers judge a film, because we know how deeply stupid they really are (note, I'm making generalizations here. I actually respect a few execs; Roth, Lansing, De Luca, and his New Line brethren spring immediately to mind.) Sure, Universal wants to milk every possible dime out of Forman's film, but, as Harry noted in his initial rant, they did read the script, and knew damn well that this was going to be a tough sell. Now, they want to re-cut the work of a multiple Oscar winner (which is where your nice little story about LA CUCARACHA becomes irrelevant, as this is not the work of some wet-behind-the-ears filmmaker.) Here's my suggestion: keep the film as is, and lug it over to the Venice Film Festival, where they can find out if this movie really has legitimate artistic merit. If the film is dismissed critically, they've got support for their argument that the film is a lost cause, and can go to Forman with some formidable ammunition in support of cutting and/or reshoots. If it's a hit..... well, gear up for the Oscar campaign, folks! I believe the man's oeuvre affords him, at least, that much respect. Of course, I'll be the first to admit that I'm judging this film blindly, but if the film already has its supporters, it can't be *that* bad.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:34:58 PM CDT

    MOTM

    by cactuslil2

    Who do you think you are, you sorry sack of crap? And pray, tell, what were your sources? Not one source did you name to back up your "facts!" You've heard a rumor, and you've taken it at face value without investigating anything! Why don't you try contacting Jim's PR, or better yet, the marketing people at Universal yourself? If you can't get in touch with THEM (why would they want to talk to a lying, rumor-spreading lardass, anyway?), then you can go to www.jimcarreyonline.com. They always have informed, factual information. Not the tabloid fodder you spew! You are trying to bring Jim down in the guise of singing him praise. I see right through you. And most other people with a lick of sense do, too! Go back to the cave from whence you came, or better yet, cut out your tongue and fingers, so that you can no longer spread these stupid, crappy lies!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 5:40:28 PM CDT

    if i don't catch you later Universal, good morning, good afterno

    by thunderball

    If Uni wanted a comedy then they should have made a 70 million dollar remake of "Taxi." Leave Forman's film alone!!!!!!

    As for you other goofballs who are ranting at Harry for speaking his mind about movies at his own web site which was created for just that reason - get lost blowbags.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 7:43:27 PM CDT

    It's about freakin' time

    by boggle_king

    Thank You for finally giving it to the system, Harry. Of course, those industry swine had it coming. How can "Man On The Moon" not be one of the best movies of the year (whatever year that might be). Did anyone see that Comedy Central special? Didn't do him justice of course (and it had that spawn of Satan, Bob Saget), but it had its moments. Jim Carrey is perfect to play the part. I saw a picture of him somewhere and you can tell he's into this movie. I mean, he was so into the role that he actually got hit by Lawler "again". THIS MOVIE WILL ROCK!!!!!! I hope Andy comes out for the premier. That'd make some headlines (he could bring Jim Morrison and Elvis with him.)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 8:10:30 PM CDT

    my own open letter

    by coop

    I will keep this short so I don't repeat anyone who has written before me. My only comment is that we the movie going public are interested in this film and there is alot of buzz on the street about it. We are not excited because we expect a wacky Jim Carrey comedy or even a funny Andy Kaufman movie, we want a great film. This generation of filmgoer has much more inside information from the gate and we all know Milos' work and the Kaufman story already.
    Please don't underestimate your audience and let us see this film as it was made. It's not going to make as much money as Ace Ventura, just accept that, we are a smaller audience but we can still give you a healthy profit margin with the right marketing plan.
    Any softening of this film will only disappoint true film fans and the people wanting a goofy comedy will be disappointed too.
    That's all I have to say with one more addition that echos Harry, Please market this film correctly or you'll just make things worse for your opening.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 8:13:55 PM CDT

    LISTEN TO THESE FOLKS!

    by lizzybeth

    Movie folk have a unique opportunity right now to check out what movie lovers really think.. right on this site. These are the people who spread the word and put money in their pockets.

    There is a great story in the biography of Andy Kaufman, and from the minute I heard the names involved (Milos Foreman) I decided that I would have to see it. I *am* middle-class mid-america, and I'm first in line. Remove your head from your ass. Andy Kaufman is a piece of American cultural history and people will want to see this story. The good, bad, and ugly. Especially the ugly. This is the sort of thing people love, and as Harry said if Robin Williams is any indication they also love a turnaround. Especially after Carrey didn't get the Oscar nod. If you wanna go the publicity route, Carrey coming back with a vengance will be the best publicity you could get. On the artistic side, Saving Private Ryan proved last summer that people WILL come to a serious film amid the summer rush. There IS room for a great film in the cineplexes, but first you have to put it there. Listen to Harry -- I don't always agree with the guy, but he knows of what he speaks. RELEASE THIS FILM!!

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 9:24:39 PM CDT

    OF COURSE THEY'RE FREAKING OUT!

    by garbo

    They've made a 50-plus million dollar art film. Mr. Silver had the balls to say yes to a great script that, as many talk-backers attest, captured the essence of what A.K. was all about, and hedged his bets by casting Jim Carrey (instead of say, someone like Ed Norton) because he figured if they put him in it the movie would be a big commercial hit. Well, guess what, it probably won't be, no matter how great the movie is or what they do to it. It was never supposed to be a big commercial hit, it's an ART FILM, a biopic, about a performance artist whose comedy was less about the joke than about the audience's reaction to the joke. Unfortunately, Universal sold their art-film distribution arm to Barry Diller, so they have to release the movie and market it themselves. Hopefully the producers (who, incidentally, are also responsible for the much-praised OUT OF SIGHT -- good taste those people have) will be able to do more about this film's marketing than they were for that one's. And not to run on, but a couple more things for the record in response to other talk backers:
    1. You bet those execs know about Harry's site and keep an eye on it for postings about their films. Because
    2. They are generally devoid of instinct
    Because
    3. Contrary to popular assumption, todays execs are not the unschooled moguls of the past, but rather MBA's who are solely interested in the bottom line and keeping their jobs, not necessarily in that order. Ironic that they release such classics as BASEKETBALL but balk at a real movie...

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 9:35:45 PM CDT

    Re: NuSchool- Geeks, get a clue

    by thorms

    Look, as an independent filmmaker, one of the things that bothers me about the way Hollywood is today, is the attitude of the studios, and most of all, the executives.

    Movies are not supposed to be a business. Movies are an artform.
    Don't agree? Well, deal with it!
    Just because a big studio wants to make a buck, doesn't mean it has the right to mess
    with somebody's vision. Just think if an art dealer had told DaVinci : "Put a smile on Mona Lisa, people will like her better, and she'll be worth more..."

    Now, the thing that really bothers me, is YOUR attitude towards the movie going public.
    We're the ones who pay your salary, even though our names aren't on the check. I'm a film buff, and proud of it. I take personal offence when someone calls an art loving film enthusiast a 'film geek', as you put it. Like it or not, without film fans, you're nothing. You are a pencilpusher who only sees the $ mark printed on the inside of your Ray-Bans. You're a beancounter. Call yourself what you like, but that's the position you've placed yourself in. You probably have a degree in business (not that it's bad; my brother
    has one), and you saw this as the opportunity to make a big buck But you probably wouldn't know a good film if it chased you down and hit you over the head (something I'd pay to see). You're in it for the money, not for the love of the craft. So don't you
    dare putting anyone down who IS in it for the love of the craft, because without us, you'd be working for Texaco, or even worse, Microsoft. I would rather keep my films as they are, risking having to show them myself to people who wanted to see them, than having some idiot like you tell me how to express my vision, and trying to tell me that I should cut this or that, or add a pop song, just so they you sell the soundtrack Your job, like it or not, is not to ask the artist to change his work of art (good or bad), your job is to try to sell it the best you possibly can, AS IT IS! I can't think of any artform where the reseller tries to tell the creator how to create. Imagine if gallery owners started telling the artists how to paint
    their paintings, or sculpt their sculptures! They have the good sence not to (which you and your likes obviously don't). Unfortunately this isn't the case in the film industry.

    What I especially disliked about your distasteful piece in the talkback, was your blatant
    and undisputed disrespect for the public audience. Using 4-letter words and other
    expletives about the people who pay your boss, is not a very smart thing to do. At least you had the common sence not to mention where you work, or you'd be in for a treat.
    I can't imagine what could have made you so sinister, cynical, disrespectful and selfserving. Maybe it's because your payckeck is from 'a big studio'. Well, big deal.

    Also, not all of us 'film-geeks' are Trekkies or Porn-downloaders. It seems many people assume of others, what they see in themselves. I think that applies to you.

    You should be ashamed of yourself (not that I think you can), and have the common desency to resign, before you hurt this artform even more than you already have.
    In my experience, and my humble opinion, it seems most executives are bred somewhere on an island in the Pacific, much like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. One double-digit-IQ steps down or is fired, and another one just like him takes his place... mindboggling stuff.

    I hope you have a nice, short career.

    Thor M. Steindorsson
    temsi@netwood.net
    (see, I even have the balls to include my real name and e-mail address, which I'm sure you'll pass on to your buddies at work so you can all look down on me, the silly 'film-geek' who happens to love what he does, just because of what it is, not because of how well it pays.)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 9:46:52 PM CDT

    Typical Hollywood Crap

    by queens

    C'mon folks! We should all know better by now! Nobody ever lost money underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Studios are terrified that they might release a film that, while it is a brilliant piece of art, does not break any box office records. Jim Carrey is a fine actor and I will wait as long as it takes to see what may be one of his finest films.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:00:58 PM CDT

    Get going Universal

    by kentobi

    Universal better get their thumbs out of their asses and release this movie, "can't sell it" give me a break, I heard the same thing while back about The Truman Show, how it was a different type of role for Carrey and that it was going to be difficult to sell it, well we all know what happened to Truman, it was successful and Carrey should have been nominated for an Oscar. When are these people that only understand the plot (if you can call it that) of movies like Armageddon and gonna start appriciating good films and realize that Carrey has lot of talent besides making funny faces.
    Few tips for the marketing people at Universal, don't make it look like its the next Truman Show, or another Carrey comedy.
    Can't wait to see Man on the Moon and Carrey on the stage accepting an Oscar.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:12:45 PM CDT

    BULL S***

    by idb

    I have been waiting to see this movie for a real long time. If they don't release it soon, I will boycot all of their films.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:50:38 PM CDT

    Dear China

    by dicedano

    Please use your new nuclear technology and blow up Hollywood. Well, just be sure Milos, Scorsese, Spielberg, and a few others are out of town. ok thanks.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 02, 1999 10:52:40 PM CDT

    http://andykaufman.jvlnet.com/

    by kirin

    Jim Carrey on Andy's influence: "It was very important for me to do justice to him. He was on such another level. He had a pure need to create. He was like Geppetto. He walked into a room and didn't see people who would like him or not like him, hurt him or help him. He saw the world as his own little puppet show. Andy wasn't a comedian, he was a behavioral scientist. I was hooked the first time I saw him. I think of him as the Neil Armstrong of comedy. He went places no one else had gone. If he was a comedian, he was the only one who didn't need to get a laugh. He didn't care if audiences loved him or hated him as long as he got beneath their veneer and got them emotionally involved."

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 03, 1999 1:30:30 AM CDT

    Three words can sum up this situation perfectly

    by ogami itto

    And those words are: The Magnificent Ambersons. I imagine the people that will read this are knowledgeable in film to get my meaning. The movie that Orson Welles claimed that, in its original form, blew Citizen Kane out of the water. I can believe it too, Welles was on the top of his game at the time. But alas, the studio took it out of his hands and practically let the janitor re-cut it. Now we will never know what The Magnificent Ambersons was truly meant to be. While reading the above article I can't help but be reminded of the Ambersons situation. Even if Man on the Moon is not destined to be a classic, I think this is a perfect metaphor for the fact that the director knows best, test-screenings be damned.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 03, 1999 9:24:50 AM CDT

    Sack Monkeys

    by strfkr

    "Sack Monkeys"?!? That's fucking great. I will definately be using that one.
    Anyway....
    Why don't all you people stop crying. How does anyone know what the deal is with this movie. It could be great, it could suck balls. Wow Milos Forman won lots of awards, So Did CELINE DION. Using previous awards as a defense of MOTM is ridiculous!
    Let's face facts Larry Flynt was not a good film. Sure it was entertaining for a half or or so but then it's the same shit over and over again. Snooooze. It was hollywood crap. All of his films are "hollywood" films. Big star and pretty pictures. Sure he gets lucky once in a while and he is better than a lot of others but c'mon....
    As for Jim Carey: You people don't really think he's that great do you? Annoying fuck is more like it.
    Hey if this movie does come out I'll probably go see it but I never expected anything too stallar. Shit they named it after a fucking R.E.M. song for christ sake. Another case of once good but now they suck.
    Sure it's easy to say that the studio fucked it up. I say it all the time but I'm sure that sometimes they are correct in assuming that they have a movie that won't sell. No matter what you think that is the bottom line' Making $$$$. If directors/writers/etc. hate the evil studios so much why don't they get off their asses and do something about it. I'm sure Milos Forman has enough power/connections to get someone to give him money to make/distibute a film. He's just as much to blame as the studio. That's what you get when you deal with the devil.

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 03, 1999 10:48:13 PM CDT

    Re: NuSchool- Geeks get a clue, part II

    by thorms

    I just received this e-mail from the poor executive who actually feels threatened by our writings. (If he didn't, he wouldn't spend his time answering me). By his answer, he further proves my point about the stupidity of Hollywood Executives, and the danger the likes of him pose to this glorious artform. He doesn't even know the difference between a hired gun and a creative mind. Can you believe a foulmouthed, agitated, disrespectful, artist-hating, narrow-minded, raving lunatic like him, is actually the kind of person you'd very likely have to deal with as an artist in Hollywood?!? Frightening!
    Now I know why George Lucas left!
    This is the kind of guys Hollywood needs to get rid of, FAST!
    Also, to hammer my point in even further, he doesn't even know that independents don't use Super-8 anymore... We've gone Digital. Welcome to the real world of the 21st Century.
    Oh, and a personal note to Mr. Stevens: "I know how the process works, I just don't like what you're doing to it."
    Anyway, here's what I received:

    From:
    "Travis T Stevens"
    To:
    "Thor M. Steindorsson"
    Subject:
    Re: your Talkback re: MOTM
    Date:
    Thu, 3 Jun 1999 11:03:59 -0700


    Thor--

    I hope your career in film is long and bountiful. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I'm sure that results in some fantastic cinematic
    creations on your part.

    Now I could spit forth an equal amount of venom at you and how I perceive some self-acclaimed "Filmmakers", but I'm not. My entire point of yesterday's posts
    was to counter the sort of wack-assed unknowledgeable drivel you just e-mailed me.

    Its like this see-- Filmmaking can be art, sure! And If you pay for your own movie (as I'm sure your familiar with) you can have it any old way you want. Now
    let's go to the painting metaphor. Paint is a lot cheaper than film jackass. But guess how artists back in the day made their cash-- why by doing commissioned
    work, of course. Sure they might love painting cats getting raped by frogs, but what put food on the table was the portrait they did of Grand Duke Wallis, from
    the Northern Estate. Now do ya think the Grand Duke would pay THE FUCKING ARTIST IF THE FUCKING PICTURE DID NOT LOOK LIKE HIM? No! The
    artist has the responsibility to deliver what the person paying for it expects.

    You don't pay for the cost of making a movie when you go to a theater. Somebody else put up that money based on their expectations for what the end result
    would be. So when lunch comes and its duck but you ordered eggplant....ya send it back. It doesn't matter if the fucking chef makes a great duck-- your paying
    the fat bastard to make you eggplant cuz thats what you want. Artistic freedom my nutz! Universal just shelled out 20 fucking million dollars for Jim Carrey.
    That is a huge investment that they need a return on. We didn't see the movie so we can't have an opinion on if their concerns are warranted or not. But you
    have to understand the pressure on them. This movie cost million of dollars to make. And it has to make 200 percent of that budget back to be considered
    "Profitable". Thats why you hire Milos and Jim-- because they increase the odds it'll make its money back based on your expectations of the product they will
    deliver. If that product isn't what you expected-- it gets fucking scary.

    You think I'm the one who's concerned with cash? Really-- then why didn't Jim and Milos do this movie as a little indecent they financed themselves...you know
    Jim could afford it. Why? Because nobody took this fucking movie out of some great urge to tell an artistic masterpiece. This isn't some labor of love Milos
    has been fighting Universal to bring to the screen for decades. They are hired guns to deliver a product that Universal wants to produce. Like GM expecting
    the car factories to make the fucking car from the design-- not what ever the fuck they want.

    So in closing-- you don't know shit about me. Well, you are correct in saying that it is I who downloads porn form the internet, but other wise.... I would think it
    would be obvious from my sinister post that I do care about movies from an emotional level other than greedy money-grubbin'-- but who knows, ya seem like a
    jack-ass. So you asked me to resign. Okay I will. I resign myself to the fact that some people live inside a little bubble labeled "False Reality" and as long as
    nobody breaks that bubble everything is okay.

    Hope you can keep finding film for that super-8 camera champ! Yo're gonna need it until you learn how this process actually works.

    T-MAN

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jun 07, 1999 5:47:36 PM CDT

    Jim Carrey Oscar Shoo-in.

    by ryaskre

    With the fact that Jim carrey has been devoting himself entirely to this film for quite some time and has transformed himself into Andy Kaufman so completely that off the set he hasn't been able to put he role down, it seems that he will finally recieve the hard-earned Oscar that he missed out on for "The Truman Show". Universal should not be afraid to release a film that could enlighten us all to the genius of a very mysterious man. Additionally, I would want to see this movie because of the long list of guest stars: Norm MacDonald (my hero!) David Letterman (how cool will it be to see him as himself in 1982? Maybe with a wig??) and the stars of Taxi (With LOTS of makeup, no doubt). I am more excited about this movie than Star Wars, for the simple fact that this story is true and told with the touch of brilliance that the director and star will bring. (By the way, Universal, I am a 15 year old boy, the very market you are trying to reach, and all my friends and I are VERY excited about a new Jim Carrey movie, depressing or not)

    Reply to Talkback

  • Jul 28, 2006 11:07:14 PM CDT

    I guess the shoe didn't fit.

    by wolfpack

User Login

Forgot password? Retrieve it here

or register as new user

Quick Talkback Form

Please login to post talkback