A First Review of FADE TO BLACK - Review of FADE TO BLACK

[Glenn Anders]

I don't think anyone here has come across this garrulous first review of Oliver Parker's FADE TO BLACK (said to be released by the Weinstein Company this Spring). It is posted by Nathaniel Parker's webmistress! After an impulsive long distance trip to Hamburg, she gives us a fan's eye view of what the picture is about:

http://www.nathanielparker.com/cms/inde ... Itemid=133

Glenn

[Tony]

"No distributor". Those are the important words in that review.
Probably a "direct to video" presentation.

[Glenn Anders]

No, Tony, perhaps I did not emphasize it enough for you. The Weinstein Company, it is my understanding, will distribute FADE TO BLACK this Spring.

Nathaniel Parker's webmistress confirms that information in a later post, dated November 5, 2006:

"As I've been promising you to keep you updated on the further developments of the distribution of Fade To Black, I thought it would be fitting to give you an update on the latest rumours that are spreading from an insider website. The Australian based online site Dark Horizons published a news bit on Friday, informing us that Fade To Black has found two distributors.

"The Weinstein Company will take over the US market while MGM will be in charge of worldwide distribution. The Weinstein Company announced a distribution pact with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer in March 2006.

"The online service also published the news that "Fade to Black" is scheduled for a spring release. Among other movies, The Weinstein Company plans to release the following films over the next couple of months: Bobby (November 2006), Breaking and Entering (December 2006, with Miramax Films), Virgin Territory (January 2007), The Last Legion (January 2007), Young Hannibal: Behind the Mask (February 2007), TMNT (March 2007, with Warner Bros. Pictures and Imagi Animation Studios), Grind House (April 2007), Sin City 2 (2007), Hood vs. Evil (2007), Black Hole (2008) and Quelques jours en septembre (TBA)."

She may be talking through her hat, but she seems pretty definite, and she gives a source.

Glenn

[Tony]

March 2006 agreement? That's almost a year ago. I've heard that the Weinsteins often buy movies but don't distribute them; see Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Movie Wars" book.

But let's hope you're right, Glenn.

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: I always hope that you keep raising these questions, not because of the clarity of my message, but because you just want to correspond with us. The point is that the general agreement was made back in March of 2006, but the news release Nathaniel Parker's girlfriend refers to is from a couple of months ago. In other words, Tony, the Weinsteins and MGM decided on the the following plan: Worldwide -- MGM; The U.S. -- Weinsteins, this Spring.

Is that clear?

We burn up so much Cyberspace here in repeating the obvious.

Glenn

[Tony]

Thanks for, as always, the condescension, Glenn: I'd be very dissappointed if you weren't reliably insulting, rude, and 'politely' nasty.

[Terry]

That's why I refuse to read anything he posts.

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: I have no monopoly on the qualities you cite. Just read what I write. If I have left something out, I'm only too happy to correct my mistakes. However, I don't insist on misspelling names of people I don't like, defend the indefensible, nor in future, will I pretty up my own defenses with foolish, evidently insincere happy faces.

Hadji: In terms of insults, you began all of this. I've tried to give you slack throughout. It is so stupid to ignore facts in order to criticize style. We should be concentrating on the rather positive conclusions about FADE TO BLACK.

But -- bottom line -- if you don't read my posts, don't raise questions about them.

It's so easy.

Succinctly, FADE TO BLACK will be released in the United States by the Weinstein Company this Spring, about the same time that THE HOAX appears. We should be celebrating that, in my opinion, instead of undermining the reports and the distributors.

Glenn

[Terry]

You're going to wear out your bicycle pump in trying to keep that monumental and leaking ego aloft.

[Tony]

Glenn:

I have absolutely no problem in disagreements about Welles: hashing ideas out usually improves them. It's just that you are totally dogmatic: it's your way, and if the other person disagrees, there are merely a fool. And then you come on with all the insults and put-downs; here's a few from the last 48 hours:

"Tony: I always hope that you keep raising these questions, not because of the clarity of my message, but because you just want to correspond with us."

"Tony, the Weinsteins and MGM decided on the the following plan: Worldwide -- MGM; The U.S. -- Weinsteins, this Spring. Is that clear? We burn up so much Cyberspace here in repeating the obvious."

"Tony... I don't insist on misspelling names of people I don't like, defend the indefensible, nor in future, will I pretty up my own defenses with foolish, evidently insincere happy faces."

Glenn: I recomend you take a good, hard look at yourself: you are not civil on this site. You've got plenty of interesting thoughts and ideas, but you do not brook disagreement. You condescend and insult others regularly, and believe me: I am not the only one who feels this way.

Please: try to be more open-minded and civil.

(sincere happy face)

[Glenn Anders]

Tony, Hadji: Here was my innocent, I thought, amusing, possibly informative post:

"I don't think anyone here has come across this garrulous first review of Oliver Parker's FADE TO BLACK (said to be released by the Weinstein Company this Spring). It is posted by Nathaniel Parker's webmistress! After an impulsive long distance trip to Hamburg, she gives us a fan's eye view of what the picture is about:

< http://www.nathanielparker.com/cms....133>

---------------

To which you replied, Tony:

"'No distributor'. Those are the important words in that review.
Probably a 'direct to video' presentation."

But as I pointed out, the facts appeared to indicate otherwise. You two may be right, in the end, but a fact supported opinion usually trumps a generalization. I got this notion somewhere in 30 years of teaching English. I guess that's being "dogmatic."

Anyway, you two claim to speak for The Tribe. Is that it?

Fine, I'm out of here. May no future correspondent annoy you. I shall continue to look in from time to time, certainly to celebrate some advance of a Welles' project. I have a lot of back work to catch up on, and I have spent far too much time here. Anyone who has contributed over a 1000 posts to this site must be not just an egomaniac . . . but NUTS!

Until my return, I remain (after all):

Glenn Anders

[jaime marzol]

hadji emailed to say jeff never posts here any more and glenn just stormed off in a hissy-fit and will probably not come back.

maybe this place will be ok again and we can post our odd welles finds without someone kicking dirt on it.

[Jeff Wilson]

hadji emailed to say jeff never posts here any more and glenn just stormed off in a hissy-fit and will probably not come back.

maybe this place will be ok again and we can post our odd welles finds without someone kicking dirt on it.

Given your previous history of being an irritant, that's highly unlikely. I've done what I probably should have done long ago by ending your posting privileges once and for all.

[Gordon]

Jeff,

At one point you had indicated that it should be prohibited to post under multiple names and that posters should use either their first or last names as their only sign on.

I think that was a fair policy that, if enforced, could dramatically reduce incidents of abuse on this board.

Gordon.

[Jeff Wilson]

All multiple accounts for all users that I am aware of have already been shut down.