Kevin Smith Confronts Joel Siegel

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I wish one of his co-workers or one of the millionaires in his building had walked up behind him while he was making it.

I'm really, really glad that didn't happen.

 

[Joe Kerr]

The guy in the middle is hilarious.

WHO THE HELL IS THE GUY IN THE MIDDLE???

i didnt see nuthin....

 

[SentinelMind]

WOW, Kevin Smith is a *****ebag. Joel Siegel apologized like three times and complimented to Kevin Smith during the conversation. "It's too late to apologize", and he's attacking the man's health, age, and appearance.....that's childish stuff. Kevin's argument is all over the place, he fears Joel Siegel is going to ruin his career or movie's prospects, so he creates controversy by attacking the man and blowing up the situation like its some sort of crisis. This isn't professionalism. It's just ratings.

 

[Joe Kerr]

WOW, Kevin Smith is a *****ebag. Joel Siegel apologized like three times and complimented to Kevin Smith during the conversation. "It's too late to apologize", and he's attacking the man's health, age, and appearance.....that's childish stuff. Kevin's argument is all over the place, he fears Joel Siegel is going to ruin his career or movie's prospects, so he creates controversy by attacking the man and blowing up the situation like its some sort of crisis. This isn't professionalism. It's just ratings.

you know whats childish???

Saying sorry and expecting everything to be "all better now"... thats childish...

 

[SentinelMind]

you know whats childish???

Saying sorry and expecting everything to be "all better now"... thats childish...

LMAO!! What should Joel Siegel do? Squirm on the floor and beg for forgiveness? Join a monastery and meditate away his sins? Become his slave? I've seen worse incidents than that be resolved by an apology. Life's too short to whine over something after an apology.

This is just entertainment. Kevin Smith and those radio jocks have nothing else to talk about...they need to stretch everything for all of its worth. Harrassment and immature jokes is all they have.

He even asks for Joel's endorsement "can I use the line "Kevin Smith is a fine director" for my ads"......you think this isn't all planned publicity stunt. Please.

Why should he have to defend his walking out?
Five minute rant from Kevin Smith. "Boohoo....if it was Tom Hanks, he wouldn't have walked out"..... YEAH! You're not Tom Hanks, get over it. Stop whining and live your life.

 

[Tangled Web]

Look at these ****ing Joel Siegel fanboys. Looks like someone **** in their cereal. Siegel said there was nothing wrong with what he did. He should have agreed to be a man and watch the whole movie.

The scene in question wasn't even that bad.

 

[SentinelMind]

Look at these ****ing Joel Siegel fanboys. Looks like someone **** in their cereal. Siegel said there was nothing wrong with what he did. He should have agreed to be a man and watch the whole movie.

The scene in question wasn't even that bad.

"Joel Siegel fanboys". Well, if this was in reference to me, I've never heard of the man before today.
The scene "wasn't even that bad" to you, but to him it was beyond disturbing. People have different tastes and tolerances, that's just something you accept in life. He apologized at least three times for making a disturbance which he felt Smith was overexaggerating (I think Smith even implicitly admitted he wasn't even there when it happened) and yet Smith shot numerous below the belt jokes and refused to accept the apology. If you're not going to accept the apology, what's the point? Why cry over spilled milk? Smith felt threatened that Siegel's 'disturbance' in the theater was going to influence the other movie reviewers, so Smith had no choice but get in a publicity stunt to embarass the reviewer, and some radio jockeys wanted in the fun. Making fun of moustache? Age, appearance? All while delivering a monologue on professionalism. You're joking.

 

[Tangled Web]

"Joel Siegel fanboys". Well, if this was in reference to me, I've never heard of the man before today.
The scene "wasn't even that bad" to you, but to him it was beyond disturbing. People have different tastes and tolerances, that's just something you accept in life. He apologized at least three times for making a disturbance which he felt Smith was overexaggerating (I think Smith even implicitly admitted he wasn't even there when it happened) and yet Smith shot numerous below the belt jokes and refused to accept the apology. If you're not going to accept the apology, what's the point? Why cry over spilled milk? Smith felt threatened that Siegel's 'disturbance' in the theater was going to influence the other movie reviewers, so Smith had no choice but get in a publicity stunt to embarass the reviewer, and some radio jockeys wanted in the fun. Making fun of moustache? Age, appearance? All while delivering a monologue on professionalism. You're joking.

It's his job to review movies for the public. Not be a little baby and cause a disturbance. I've heard worse stuff in movies that I know Siegel sat through. He didn't walk out of Bachelor Party, which delt with the same subject.
Siegel said that he didn't do anything wrong with yelling as he left the show.

 

[SentinelMind]

It's his job to review movies for the public. Not be a little baby and cause a disturbance. I've heard worse stuff in movies that I know Siegel sat through. He didn't walk out of Bachelor Party, which delt with the same subject.
Siegel said that he didn't do anything wrong with yelling as he left the show.

Siegel said if he walks out he won't make a scene ever again and he apologized three times. What more can you do after that? What was Smith expecting? What did he REALLY want from the exchange?
Yes, they do get paid to watch movies, but that doesn't mean they have to tolerate anything that revolts them. If the movie had 10 minutes of aggressive frontal gay porn with a horse neighing in the background, would you just sit there and watch it, especially if you weren't told about it beforehand? If he felt really strongly about a scene, I really don't see why he has to defend his decision of refusing to watch the rest of it to anyone, he's not a jailed lab rat.
Smith's argument is sketchy at best, just because two scenes have the same topic doesn't mean I have to respond to them the same exact way. It could be difference in presentation, the fact that the movies have completely different buildup beforehand, or simply changes in the critic's personal outlook on topics as he gets older. People's reactions to art is subjective and that's just something movie directors have to accept. "You tolerated this stuff back then....you better tolerate it now". Uh-huh. Right. And even if the difference is Tom Hanks,....well then get Tom Hanks in your movie next time.

 

[Assassin]

what an ass

 

[Assassin]

BTW, the movie was awesome

 

[Tangled Web]

Siegel said if he walks out he won't make a scene ever again and he apologized three times. What more can you do after that? What was Smith expecting? What did he REALLY want from the exchange?
Yes, they do get paid to watch movies, but that doesn't mean they have to tolerate anything that revolts them. If the movie had 10 minutes of aggressive frontal gay porn with a horse neighing in the background, would you just sit there and watch it, especially if you weren't told about it beforehand? If he felt really strongly about a scene, I really don't see why he has to defend his decision of refusing to watch the rest of it to anyone, he's not a jailed lab rat.
Smith's argument is sketchy at best, just because two scenes have the same topic doesn't mean I have to respond to them the same exact way. It could be difference in presentation, the fact that the movies have completely different buildup beforehand, or simply changes in the critic's personal outlook on topics as he gets older. People's reactions to art is subjective and that's just something movie directors have to accept. "You tolerated this stuff back then....you better tolerate it now". Uh-huh. Right. And even if the difference is Tom Hanks,....well then get Tom Hanks in your movie next time.

If I were Smith I would expect Siegel to sit through the film and write a review.
Oh and **** that ****. Why should Smith's film be treated differently because it doesn't have a mega star like Tom Hanks. Siegel's job isn't to play favorite celeb.
You are obviously a delusional Joel Siegel fanboy.

 

[SentinelMind]

If I were Smith I would expect Siegel to sit through the film and write a review.
Oh and **** that ****. Why should Smith's film be treated differently because it doesn't have a mega star like Tom Hanks. Siegel's job isn't to play favorite celeb.
You are obviously a delusional Joel Siegel fanboy.

I'm trying my hardest not to get into flame war here, but can you make an argument without resorting to excessive profanity and calling someone a fanboy, for crying out loud? I've never heard of the man before today and could care less about his reviews. The final point I was making was half tongue-in-cheek, but to act like the presence of a particular megastar actor in the film doesn't color one's perception, enjoyment, or memory of the film is naive at best. Tom Hanks being in the movie is PART of the movie experience. To suggest that one shouldn't treat the film differently because of the absence or presence of something in the film doesn't make much sense to me. The argument that you better tolerate my crap because someone else had the same crap in a different context is a flaky, sorry. If he found something repulsive and unbearable, he is justified in leaving.

 

[jaguarr]

If he found something repulsive and unbearable, he is justified in leaving.

I agree with that, but he's not justified in behaving like an ass on the way out. Nor is Smith justified in pulling a sneak attack on him on a radio show. They're both at fault, but seriously....why does anyone give a flying f**k?

jag

 

[The Comedian]

Go in a video store and find the ****tiest movies on the shelf, the onw good review quoted on it will be from either Joel Siegel, or Larry King. Usually a single word reviw like "Fun!"

 

[Addendum]

Go in a video store and find the ****tiest movies on the shelf, the onw good review quoted on it will be from either Joel Siegel, or Larry King. Usually a single word reviw like "Fun!"

Actually it'll be more like

"...fun..." - Joel Siegel from Good Morning America

 

[Darthphere]

I love how TW calls people "Joel Siegel fanboys",

 

[The Comedian]

I love how TW calls people "Joel Siegel fanboys",

does such a thing even exist?

 

[Darthphere]

No, thats why I think its funny while he blatantly is showing his own fanboyism, it all has a beautiful irony to it.