This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did Kevin Smith bill this as a horror film? I can't see how anyone would objectively classify this as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.88.52 ( talk) 19:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this. It only seems like a horror film if the original ending was the actual ending. Outside of that it just seems like a thriller. 222.154.232.126 ( talk) 06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
While a Wikipedia article is not the place to speculate about hoaxes (talk pages, however...), I question the flat statement that the screening was protested by Fred Phelps and the Westboro family. Not only did the whole affair smack of a (horror movie director/producer/distributor) William Castle promotional stunt (coincidentally also reenacted by Red State's John Goodman in the film Matinee), it was openly billed by Smith as a spectacle: "This is gonna be like watching STAR WARS with Darth Vader right there in the audience!" 75.105.128.54 ( talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
In a video interview with Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Smith said that the claim that he looks up to Mel Gibson is completely off base and untrue. Watch for yourself. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/off-the-cuff-with-peter-travers-kevin-smith-on-his-first-horror-film-red-state-20110307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.33.221 ( talk) 02:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Smith asked film critics/journalists to include details of why the new teaser poster was released yesterday (fans donated $1000 dollars to The Wayne Foundation) when they printed or wrote about said poster (see here - [1]). I noticed that the poster has been uploaded here, but nothing has been mentioned about The Wayne Foundation. Should this information be mentioned in the article (under marketing, perhaps)? - JuneGloom Schmooze 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Currently the first words under the Marketing section are "After failing to find a distributor." None of the references nearby, or any references I know of, mention any attempt to find a distributor. Actually, recent tweets under Kevin Smith's official account reveal that self-distribution was intended for some time. ( tweet 1 and tweet 2)
Can I remove that fragment? -- Dfonseca ( talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
New here. I've been editing this article and certain users have been reverting my edits that include any positive information regarding this film. Considering that I have simply added (working) links to positive reviews in addition to the negative and removing statements such as "Failed to find a distributor" as discussed aboved (not true; the tour for this film was booked long in advance), I fail to see how my edits are 'vandalism'. I am simply adding the good to the bad and trying to balance out the obvious anti-Smith attitude that this page has been edited with. I suggest this page be monitored/temp. locked/whatever; I am not an admin, so it is not up to me, but I would like to see this page treated fairly. Sandroguitar67 ( talk) 03:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Indierewired ( talk) 03:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
You're still not answering as to why my links to positive reviews are being removed. If you want to keep your information in regarding the distribution then feel free to do so, but do not remove positive reviews of the film and then accuse me of vandalism. Sandroguitar67 ( talk) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
False? Listen up Dwight, your edit of the article is clearly biased against the film. This movie has not 'failed'; find me a link to an article where anyone who isn't a film blogger (that includes you) states the film 'failed' anything. One link where anyone involved in the production of the film or financing or anything and I'll admit wrong. You're the one using weasel words. The movie hasn't failed, it hasn't done anything - it screened at a film festival to mixed reviews. That is not a failure. No money has been lost. Take YOUR own advice before coming back at me with your accusations. 138.86.164.126 ( talk) 04:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
So your logic is we should listen to the media for facts? The same media Smith has proven to be time and time again wrong? We should not listen to the guy that actually made the film? Are you mentally handicapped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.91.157 ( talk) 04:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Your information is out-dated. The auction, along with seeking a distributor, was clearly a hoax. Smith has said repeatedly that, since the fourth day of production, they were planning to self-distribute, but needed to create a story around it to help launch the film. Smith (and implicitly John Gordon) is pretty upfront that he made misleading statements.
Plus, here's one further step -- clearly, there were people in the room willing to bid on the film. This is a fact verifiable by noting that many of them complained after the fact. So, if they had truly wanted a distributor, they could've gotten one. The article that you cite does not say that the film failed to find a distributor (it actually says that there are a lot of distributors interested); that is your conclusion based on two facts (the article you cite plus what actually happened). However, that's your Original Research; that's unwikipedian. Rather, the proper way to do it is to find sources. Since the only source is what Kevin Smith has said, that is the only source that can be accurately cited. If you would like to quibble over how those words are presented, that is your right, but you have no case for continuing to argue that the statement "Red State failed to find a distributor" is accurate, unless you find a proper source for the claim. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy
Not here to enter this discussion (yet). Based upon what I have read, though, I would point out there really isn't a need to keep adding to your comments making them even longer (see WP:EXHAUST). Also "So your logic is we should listen to the media for facts? The same media Smith has proven to be time and time again wrong? We should not listen to the guy that actually made the film?" - Wikipedia is about verifiabilty, not truth and all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources; "Are you mentally handicapped?" - there is no need to be rude with your comments either. HrZ ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Please point out to me where I insulted you. I see no insult in anything I've said. On the other hand, you've repeatedly accused me of bias and bad-faith edits -- a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. You've repeatedly relied solely on original research to make your points -- a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, I am going to refrain from responding to your repeated insults, except to say that I come to this out of an interest in the story angle of "independent distribution". That's where I began following anything to do with Kevin Smith as far as comments on podcasts or twitter (though I've seen his movies over the years). But, to respond to your actual point, you cite two articles for the claim that 'Red State' failed to find a distributor. Neither of these sources confirms that claim as you've written it. [And I'm pretty sure that Drew McWeeney's blog entries on how much he hates Kevin Smith fail the Wikipedia test of verifiability.] Further, the Variety source you repeatedly cite -- your original research is that this quote proves that they didn't find a distributor, my original research is that that quote is obviously untrue because they had already booked Radio City Music Hall by the time that quote was given. Neither one of these is acceptable, because they're both original research. It's perfectly simple; you're using the words "After not finding a distributor for the movie". Even by your own elaborate explanation [and you'll notice, I accept in good faith that you're telling the truth; it doesn't matter, because it's original research, of course], the film had many offers from distributors. The wording that you keep claiming has a consensus (though none appears visible) is worded in a way which clearly suggests that the film had no interest, which is obviously untrue. The story you just told indicates that, at most, the filmmakers were unable to find a satisfactory theatrical distributor. And that, too, would be a fine claim to make -- if you could find a source for it. But the sources you are citing do not support the spin you are giving the words, so I have to once again remove them. I will definitely keep removing unverified statements, no matter how much you cry "edit war". Until you find actual sources to back your claims up. And you inexplicably keep reverting to your claim about the Weinsteins; the thing is, you can keep the sloppy wording that you have, that they "passed on it", or you can be more specific and say that they passed on producing it, which is true. You have no source claiming that they passed on distributing it. And, because the sentence is so close to the talks about distribution, the distinction seems important to make, for clarity's sake. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT - I actually found a source for the idea that Jon Gordon was obviously lying because they clearly already had Radio City Music Hall and other theaters booked -- Drew McWeeney says it in the link you posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Kevin Smith is currently the only source available that even approaches Wikipedia standards -- though I totally agree that anything attributed to him should be clearly indicated as such. [It is not comprable to your previous Nixon example because, in the case of Nixon, there are reputable people on both sides of the claim. You still have yet to source your claims.] You are right that I can't prove that the auction was legit or a hoax -- but the only source for the existence of the auction in the first place was Kevin Smith himself. All other sources repeated information he had provided. And, again, none of the sources cited have said that he "didn't find distribution". Any form of the phrase ("failed to", "didn't find", whatever the distinction you see there doesn't compute) implies that he was actively seeking distribution, something with no real source other than Kevin Smith himself and Jon Gordon in an article where he is (as your own source agreed) clearly lying. It is you who seems determined to mount an edit war, repeatedly inserting unsourced facts into an article in violation of wikipedian policy. I have been following the policy, specifically removing claims that are unsourced which can be damaging to the reputations of living persons or entities. And, just for the record, I was not the guy who called you mentally handicapped. All of the insults here have come from you, who has clearly shown he has no regard for listening to any other opinion. If you want to call in the editors, by all means. I'm not the one who's done anything wrong here. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 06:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy
Hey, I'm all for a compromise. I think some of your changes are fine. I agree with removing redundancies. I tweaking some of your compromises so as to remove weasel words and such. Again, I'm being careful NOT to say "he failed to find distribution" or that he "couldn't find a distributor." Incidentally, I also verified on Smith's twitter that the reason he didn't find a distributor was because the least bid he could accept for the sake of his investors was 25 million since anything less couldn't cover the costs of advertising and prints. If you need I can provide a link to that twitter. Hope this helps. 75.174.142.25 ( talk) 06:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Dammit, I had a much better response written out and then you had to jump the gun and get all reasonable on me -- right when I was trying to do that! Let's work it out in here -- I'm not entirely against including something about distributors, but I think that it should have more context than just "Smith did not find a distributor". I think that, with some qualifiers, it can be made to work -- without further explanation, though, I don't like it, because I feel like it carries some implications about the quality of the film. Whether fair or not, I think that people reading that with no further context would make some value judgement about the film based on that. Citing Twitter, and another thing up there, brings up the problem -- either Kevin Smith is a good source or he's not. You can't exactly pick and choose when to believe him based on how much the specific words support your position. Pretty much everything about 'Red State' other than the critical reviews has come from him either as a primary source or a secondary source -- the existence of the auction (or "auction-style") and the reasons for choosing self-distribution, all of it. There's a more elaborate quote from Smith somewhere along the same lines, but giving it a completely different context -- saying that, once he realized that he didn't want to take less than that, and that he didn't feel the movie's marketability justified that cost, he basically decided to self-release it.... I'm not saying this is a better or worse thing. Just that slight spins on words can really change their meaning -- if he was never seriously looking for a distributor, then he didn't quite "not find" one, you know what I mean? I was thinking, what if it's two separate sentences? One about the auction, and then the next one specifically addressing the distribution? Something like: "After announcing that distribution rights to the film would be auctioned off following the debut screening of the film at the Sundance Film Festival (out of competition), Smith instead caused a controversy by announcing plans to self-distribute the film "under the Smodcast Pictures Banner" on a traveling show in select cities before officially releasing the movie on "October 19th" in 2011. Smith has said that no distributor would be interested in the film for the amount that he felt he would need to sell it for." I don't think you're going to like that, but I think you'll come up with something good off of it. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy
I don't think you should walk away before there's a consensus. Again, citing Kevin Smith as a reason that you don't believe Kevin Smith as a source seems disengenuous in this instance. All talk of selling the film to a distributor was done in terms of the Sundance auction. It was not discussed in terms of searching for distributors and not finding them. So all of the build-up was specifically about the auction. The auction itself did not happen. Again, at the moment when Kevin Smith was going to publicly seek a distributor, he opted instead to distribute it himself. Surely you see how there is a distinction between that and "not finding a distributor". These are, as far as I have seen, the only verifiable facts about the situation. I don't see how you can think it's a bad idea to explain the film not finding a distributor. It's a very reductive phrase that needs explanation or, at the very least, an explicit and verifiable source that says simply that Kevin Smith actively sought distribution and did not find it at all and that's why he chose to self-distribute it. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 07:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT - I want you to know I thought your re-word on the Weinstein sentence was quite good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 07:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
But saying that he is lying now is original research; you're basing that on your own beliefs and assumptions and even observations. Saying that he was lying when he announced the auction is sourced, both to him and in Drew McWeeney's analysis of the event. 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 08:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT: In fact, when you google "Red State Auction Hoax", you get 195,000 hits. It seems as if there *is* a wide consensus in the media that the auction was a hoax. The positive things that think it was cool say it, the negative things that are criticizing him say it. You seem to be resistant to the idea that it was a hoax, but it certainly appears to be a more accurate statement than "The film found no distributor," which none of these "hoax" articles state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 ( talk) 08:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Listen to the podcast, Smith clearly says he decided to self distribute the movie 4 days into filming. he also mentions how difficult it was to stay quite about what he was going to do at sundance. Bencey ( talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)\
That $25 million dollar figure isn't what he was "looking for" as a bid (I'm on the hoax side, but that's beside my point). It's the "theoretical" figure that a movie would need to make in order to cover the studio's marketing costs. Socby19 ( talk) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't really want to jump into this argument between the two editors but it seems like the debate is about whether the live auction was truly a hoax or creative spin. After a cursory glance of the info, Kevin Smith seems to suggest/imply that the auction was never meant to be taken seriously. But a deeper reading of his smodcasts and his twitter suggests that he is very carefully choosing his words so as not to say one way or another. I seriously can't find a direct quote from him that "the auction was a hoax all along" or that the "auction was a joke." It looks like he was leaving it up to his audience to decide what is true or not. He's actually being very vague. On the other hand, I am finding plenty of sources that say that the auction was the real deal and Kevin Smith simply changed his mind mere moments after the film festival screening, deciding to buy the movie himself rather than sell it to someone else. For instance, a good article about all this says:
I think we should stick to the facts here rather than insert our own original research: Wikipedia:No original research. But I couldn't find any sources that said that Kevin Smith is engaging in a creative spin campaign either. So my opinion is that 'both' editors are wrong. The auction was NOT a hoax or a joke but there is not enough evidence to accuse Kevin Smith of being a spin doctor. My recommendation is to closely adhere to 3rd party sources reporting on this, suggested by another editor. According to the press, the auction was real but Kevin Smith changed his mind at the last minute after seeing the movie with a real audience for the first time. However I do agree with the other editor that using Kevin Smith as the main source of info here is a bad idea since it creates a problem with verifiability since he's been avoiding the press. Twitter and blogs are not very good sources and Kevin Smith is clearly a little biased here and not very reliable and Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiabilty, not truth and all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources. Does this work with you guys? Am I missing something here? Games Junn ( talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Bencey ( talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Questionable sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Games Junn ( talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Digging this article so far. Like how it's turning out & very informative. :-) Glad 2 see disputes been working themselves out. Happy editing crew. Ghriscore ( talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Should a section be added with the dates of the Red State U.S.A. Tour? -- Starman (The U2 Fan) ( talk) 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
While I'm often a sucker for spoilers, I think it may be a good idea to remove any plot synopses that may be edited into the article in the not-too-distant future, before the film's official release. I'm not sure if this is an actual Wikipedia policy, but I think it'd be a good idea simply out of politeness to Smith: Many horror films' plots hinge around twists, and to give the whole story away may lessen the impact of watching the film for those who merely come here for information on the production/distribution story. Of course, once it's officially released, there's nothing to stop a full plot section going up. Any differing opinions? Andyroo316 ( talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed :"Ethan Howard has called the film, "an over-zealous attack on the political right and Middle Americans motivated by left-wing hatred. Smith failed to transform his (no doubt genuine) sputtering range into an entertaining movie, let alone a social critique of any insight." No source and an unknown critic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.102.56 ( talk) 04:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
http://theredstatements.com/2011/04/18/qt-and-me/ , Kevin Smith says says "You take what we made on the tour, you add that to the $1.5mil we’ve pulled in from foreign sales thus far (with a few big territories yet to sell). Add to that $3mil we’re on the verge of closing for all North American distribution rights excluding theatrical (which means VOD/HomeVideo/PayTV/Streaming)." Jokersflame ( talk) 06:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Still, it should be noted that at the very least the film made profit during Sun Dance alone. He made back all his cash literally almost instantly. http://silentbobspeaks.com/?paged=5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.53.123 ( talk) 20:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)