That’s why Smith is doing this. It is within that context, that his last film had very bad press and he started lashing out at the press in response (after a decade and a half as a self-admitted media whore), that he has decided to do this. It’s highly relevant and the appropriate context to include in a story about how he’s handling Red State’s publicity in the aftermath.\”

That\’s speculation. Where did Smith mention this as his reason? Smith never once mentioned Cop Out because Cop Out has nothing to do with Red State. This writer\’s OPINION of Cop Out has EVEN LESS to do with Red State, or it\’s press screenings.

That\’s why Smith is doing this. It is within that context, that his last film had very bad press and he started lashing out at the press in response (after a decade and a half as a self-admitted media whore), that he has decided to do this. It\’s highly relevant and the appropriate context to include in a story about how he\’s handling Red State\’s publicity in the aftermath.

This would be true if Cop Out had anything to do with the context.

The context here is this: Kevin Smith, filmmaker, has a new film coming out entitled Red State. Smith does not wish to screen his film to journalists and bloggers, for the reason that he is already providing the information on his website for any whom wish to find it.

That\’s the story, and it\’s context. How does Cop Out, or how the writer felt about Cop Out, factor?

Please prevent this person from commentating any further. He is ruining sensible discussion.

The subject of a news story does not need to mention something in order for a journalist or commentator to mention it. Noting that Smith\’s stance is a result of his shitty film Cop Out getting appropriately shitty reviews isn\’t skewing the story, it\’s providing appropriate context.

Uwe Boll isn\’t going to say \”I\’m a hack who makes bad movies through a tax loophole to rake in cash\” but any good writer would mention that in an article about him.

Are you serious here? You can\’t mention something in article if the subject doesn\’t? Smith is already trying to dictate and control what is said about him and his movies because he\’s insecure and you\’re trying to justify it as though the only way to be an honest journalist is to let your subject determine the terms and references you can make. I call shenanigans and Smith has devolved into a petulant, unappreciative crybaby.

This way, Smith has laid everything out on the table and there\’s no excuse for those who\’ve chosen to write about this film unless they are lazy.

In fact, this blog post right here has already attempted to skew information. You mentioned Cop Out for no other reason than to take a pot shot at Smith, when he never mentioned the film himself in anything you linked to.

It\’s often difficult to detect irony via text, is there a hint there?

As for Smith bitching and such. Dude, you made a third shitty movie (anything outside the Askewverse is shite). Embrace the negative feedback and come to grips with the fact Cop Out was terrible. Move on.
I say keep up with having Red Sate in the shadows, but stop being cold about it.

But seriously, Kevin, good luck on this, I think as long as you don\’t have a black black heart, and appreciate horror films, you\’d be rooting for this film.

And writing an honest review about it, whether it\’s good or bad.

1 — I pretty much agree with everything you said about Kevin Smith.
2 — I pretty much agree with everything Kevin Smith said about the media
3 — I pretty much disagree with the way both you AND Kevin Smith have chosen to express your points of view . . . . . which is to say Cattiness As Cleverness

CONCLUSION
4 — I pretty much feel that Kevin Smith has demonstrated himself to be an
interesting director more often than than THE PLAYLIST has demonstrated itself be Roger Ebert.

More humility from Mr. Smith and yourselves would be a good thing.

That’s why Smith is doing this. It is within that context, that his last film had very bad press and he started lashing out at the press in response (after a decade and a half as a self-admitted media whore), that he has decided to do this. It’s highly relevant and the appropriate context to include in a story about how he’s handling Red State’s publicity in the aftermath.”

That’s speculation. Where did Smith mention this as his reason? Smith never once mentioned Cop Out because Cop Out has nothing to do with Red State. This writer’s OPINION of Cop Out has EVEN LESS to do with Red State, or it’s press screenings.

That’s why Smith is doing this. It is within that context, that his last film had very bad press and he started lashing out at the press in response (after a decade and a half as a self-admitted media whore), that he has decided to do this. It’s highly relevant and the appropriate context to include in a story about how he’s handling Red State’s publicity in the aftermath.

This would be true if Cop Out had anything to do with the context.

The context here is this: Kevin Smith, filmmaker, has a new film coming out entitled Red State. Smith does not wish to screen his film to journalists and bloggers, for the reason that he is already providing the information on his website for any whom wish to find it.

That’s the story, and it’s context. How does Cop Out, or how the writer felt about Cop Out, factor?

Please prevent this person from commentating any further. He is ruining sensible discussion.