- Kevin promised he’d be around, and he delivered. He spent a good part of today doing the Q&A thing over at theView Askew WWWBoard. Naturally, a lot of the questions that popped up surrounded Dogma and some of the press thatit’s been getting lately. First, Kevin comments on this piece that appeared on Cinescape Insider (First we’ll print the story, then Kev’s reply):
Under pressure from Catholic groups, Miramax recently parted ways with KevinSmith’s next film, Dogma. Miramax honchos Harvey and Bob Weinstein boughtthe movie themselves, and are reportedly shopping around to other studios.But the Toronto Sun suggests that the potential controversy the movie couldspark isn’t the only reason why the Disney sub-sid gave up on Smith’s film.The paper quotes a purported Miramax insider who suggests that the movie is”not very good in any way” and that “[t]he questionable taste factor and theMiramax association with Disney is a smoke-screen.” Being a fan of KevinSmith’s previous works and having seen part of the script (which I quiteliked) online, yours truly would be surprised if Dogma turned out to be thedud that the Sun’s source suggests it is. Time and the Cannes Film Festivalwill tell, I suppose. Perhaps it’s just a matter of taste …
Kev Says:
Is it true that Disney passed on the flick because it’s not good? ‘Not good’ for Disney to be associated with, maybe. But Harvey reported that both Joe Roth and Michael Eisner thought the flick was well-made, funny, and View Askew’s best flick to date. It was, however, too easy a target for the Catholic League, and because of that, we got our walking papers.
Will someone, somewhere find the movie ‘not good’? Absolutely. Hell, there may be alot of folks who badmouth ‘Dogma’ – no matter what I make, there’ll always be the detractors who think I’m a talentless wannabe, who’s no business being behind a camera. But was a lack of quality the reason Disney cut the flick lose? C’mon – think about it. Even if it blew, it’s still got a bankable cast. And I’m sure I’m not revealing anything new here when I point out that Disney excels at releasing star-driven films that blow.
No – I’m afraid the ‘Toronto Sun’ has put their faith in a poor source. Because if I’m certain of anything in life, it’s that the quality of the flick had nothing to do with why we were shitcanned.
As for what we’d heard on Carlin’s stuff getting cut, Kevin answered that, while George was indeed the one that hadthe most dialogue cut, that there’s still tons of good stuff left:
The poor dude got cut off after that, but we get the idea.
Okay, so how about Cannes? Kevin’s thoughts:
As for this ‘special slot’ rumor…
Hell – not competing eliminates the possibility of not winning, so I’m all for that.
Finally, a question about the Clerks cartoon sparked some comments on the Entertainment Weekly piece:
I’m not worried, though. It made sense for Disney to take a powder on ‘Dogma’ – they’re a constant target for outraged religious types, based on their position as a ‘family’ company. But our ‘Clerks’ show isn’t a hot potato; it’ll be about as controversial as ‘Mama’s Family’ (though hopefully funnier).
I don’t hold anything against Disney, to be quite honest with you. They did what they had to do (which we pretty much assumed would come to pass all along). Regardless of the shuffle, I’m still a fan (even bought me two huge and pricey Mickey Mouse-themed chairs at a posh gallery in Downtown Disney a few days after the brou-ha-ha erupted).
As for my speculation that Disney dropped the film over the ‘Mooby’ scene, as discussed in ‘Entertainment Weekly’: that made me laugh. I was joking about that at the Rider appearance, and it wound up in the magazine. Believe me – that scene had no bearing on why we were cut loose.
In fact, I just got a fax from Mister Michael Eisner himself, which was a copy of that article, and a quick note that said “Kevin – I thought that scene was funny!”
It’s just business, man. Nothing more.
Ho man, NOW something I said’s getting Eisner to take notice. A scary business this is. Anyway, as I said when weprinted the story (and Kevin confirmed above), the quote was indeed based on something Kev joked about at the Rider appearancethat I ended discussing on the phone with the author of the piece. Little did I know my ramblings would get taken outof context and used in that way. So please, consider it nothing more than that. Funny how we come full circle, sinceit seems like the same situation we had with the first piece there above, except this time I got in the middle of itall! I’ve certainly got some things to learn about dealing with journalists.
Anyway, that does it. Kevin answered a ton more stuff as well, but we thought that’s what you’d want to hear the most.
Got Something To Say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.