Rob Schneider

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

Responding to an uncomplimentary reviewer

"I can honestly say that if I sat with your colleagues at a luncheon, afterwards they'd say, 'You know, that Rob Schneider is a pretty intelligent guy' ... whereas, if you sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond recognition."

[SkyNet]

ya.... WHAT?!

[AJAX]

Originally posted by Mr. Fancy Pants
Responding to an uncomplimentary reviewer

"I can honestly say that if I sat with your colleagues at a luncheon, afterwards they'd say, 'You know, that Rob Schneider is a pretty intelligent guy' ... whereas, if you sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond recognition."


.......huh?

[Lindsey]

Would you like to elaborate on that one a little more Mr. Fancy Pants? :D

[Buck Turgidson]

So Rob hangs with the Gottis these days. Didn't realize that.

[The Mack]

I'm sure. I mean, when I think of Rob Schneider, the word tough is the first word to come to mind. :rolleyes:

If you don't believe me, just watch him in Hot Chick. Intimidating stuff.

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

DEUCE' STAR RIPS REPORTER
CLOWNISH comic Rob Schneider is in a rage over an L.A. Times writer who criticized his contribution to American cinema. The "SNL" alum, who wrote and starred in 1999's "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo" and the upcoming sequel "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo," took out a full-page ad in the Hollywood Reporter this week attacking Patrick Goldstein for an article on Jan. 26. Goldstein blasted Hollywood studios for making crummy sequels like Schneider's and thereby losing out on Oscar nominations to independents. Schneider's ad made fun of Goldstein for never having won any awards of his own, sniffing, "Most of the world [has] no idea of your existence." He wrote: "Maybe [you] didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for 'Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter' ... I can honestly say that if I sat with your colleagues at a luncheon, afterwards they'd say, 'You know, that Rob Schneider is a pretty intelligent guy' ... whereas, if you sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond recognition." Goldstein responded to PAGE SIX: "I haven't received so many congratulatory phone calls since Billy Crystal wrote a letter to the editor comparing me to Roy Cohn.

I thought it was notable because that is a nasty little threat over a bad review. He makes good money and meets pretty girls. I think he should just let criticism blow by.

[James Logan]

Originally posted by Mr. Fancy Pants

I thought it was notable because that is a nasty little threat over a bad review. He makes good money and meets pretty girls. I think he should just let criticism blow by.

Exactly. Not very classy at all, mister Schneider. Especially coming from someone who's supposed to have a sense of humor.

[Cyclonus]

[pointless aside]

To me there is only one Scheider:

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001702/

[/pointless aside]

Seriously though, Rob Scheider sounds like a dick for getting so worked up over some guy's negative review. Surely he's used to that kind of criticism? Otherwise he must be pretty miserable.

[someguy]

Seriously, why don't you post the WHOLE story instead of clipping out parts to make Rob look bad.

The story is like this, a reporter said that films like Deuce Bigalow prove about how much mainstream American cinema is being destroyed and will never be like independent cinema. Since Rob was insulted to the fact that a small movie about a geeky guy being a gigolo is considered to be "destroying cinema" he responded with this open letter(the FULL VERSION)

Dear Patrick Goldstein, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times,

My name is Rob Schneider and I am responding to your January 26 front page cover story in the LA Times, where you used my upcoming sequel to "Deuce Bigelow" as an example of why Hollywood Studios are lagging behind the Independants in Academy Nominations. According to your logic, Hollywood Studios are too busy making sequels like "Deuce Bigelow" instead of making movies that you would like to see. Well, Mr. Goldstein, as far as your snide comments about me and my film not being nominated for an Academy Award, I decided to do some research to find out what awards you have won.

I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind. Disapppointed, I went to the Pulitzer Prize database of past winners and nominees. I thought, surely, there must be an omission. I typed in the name Patrick Goldtein and again, zippo - nada. No Pulitzer Prizes or nominations for a "Mr. Patrick Goldstein." There was, however, a nomination for an Amy Goldstein. I contacted Ms. Goldstein in Rhode Island, she assured me she was not an alias of yours, and in fact like most of the World had no idea of your existence.

Frankly, I am surprised the LA Times would hire someone like you with so few or, actually, no accolades to work on their front page. Surely there must be a larger talent pool for the LA Times to draw from. Perhaps, someone who has at least won a "Cable Ace Award."

Maybe, Mr. Goldstein, you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they haven't invented a category for "Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous Reporter, Who's Never Been Acknowledged By His Peers!"

Patrick, I can honestly say that if I sat down with your colleagues at a luncheon, afterwards, they'd say, "You know, that Rob Schneider is a pretty intelligent guy, I hope we can do that again." Whereas, if you sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond recognition.

For the record, Patrick, your research is shabby as well. My next film is not "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo 2." It's "Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo," in theaters EVERYWHERE August 12th, 2005.

All my best,
Rob Schneider

[SykkBoy]

Everyone knows that Goldstein is an untalented hack of a writer who probably got picked last to play kickball in school...and Rob Schneider called him on it....pretty funny stuff

[SkyNet]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
[pointless aside]

To me there is only one Scheider:

http://imdb.com/name/nm0001702/

[/pointless aside]

Seriously though, Rob Scheider sounds like a dick for getting so worked up over some guy's negative review. Surely he's used to that kind of criticism? Otherwise he must be pretty miserable.

Roy SCHEIDER

Rob SCHNEIDER

the N makes all the difference!!

As fdor the article... Rob had every right to blast this lil prick. He had the balls to talk shit about Schneiders films... they may not be Oscar Caliber (sp??) films... but I find them entertaining, and thats all i could ask 4!
So right on to Rob for sticking it to this dick

[Mr. Fancy Pants]

You are right. I just grabbed a blurb and then an edited version of the story. Bad journalism on my part. Here is the article Rob didn't like. Now we have the whole WHOLE story.




This Year, the Safe Bets Are Off

Most of the Oscar nominees are artistic gambles financed by entrepreneurs.

By Patrick Goldstein

January 26, 2005

It's a funny thing, but today's movie studios are no longer in the Oscar business. If there's one common thread among this year's five best picture nominees, it's that they were largely financed by outside investors. The most money any studio put into one of the nominees was the $21 million that Miramax anted up for "Finding Neverland." The other nominated films were orphans — ignored, unloved and turned down flat by most of the same studios that eagerly remake dozens of old TV series (aren't you looking forward to a bigger, dumber version of "The Dukes of Hazzard"?) or bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a follow-up to "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo," a film that was sadly overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a Third-Rate Comic.

Most of the nominees aren't even classic outside-the-system indie movies. They're artistic gambles financed by entrepreneurs. If you want serious cash on the barrelhead for an Oscar picture today, you have to find yourself a cinematic sugar daddy willing to foot the bill. "The Aviator," though released by Miramax, was financed largely by Graham King, who was responsible for roughly $80 million of the film's $116-million budget (the rest coming from Miramax and Warner Bros. Films). "Ray," which earned six Oscar nominations, was financed by real estate tycoon turned media baron Phil Anschutz, who put up the entire $40-million budget after every studio in town had passed on the project.

Even Clint Eastwood, who's been making movies for Warner Bros. since before many of his rival best actor nominees were born, couldn't persuade the studio that spent $85 million on "Scooby-Doo" to put up $30 million for "Million Dollar Baby." So Hollywood's most revered actor-director went begging. When no other studio would make the film, Eastwood persuaded another entrepreneur, Lakeshore Entertainment's Tom Rosenberg, to put up half of the budget, with Warners kicking in the rest.

So how do good movies get made these days? Luckily, in Hollywood, some people just won't take no for an answer, which might be bad if you're a waiter trying to take someone's lunch order but good if you have a yen to see ambitious movies.

Take as an example "Sideways," which earned five Oscar nominations Tuesday. The film's writer-director, Alexander Payne, took the project to a slew of studios with his cast already in place. He got a chorus of noes, not because the studios didn't like the script but because they wanted Brad Pitt or George Clooney instead of relative unknowns Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church in the leading roles. By the time Payne and producer Michael London took the movie to Fox Searchlight, which agreed to make it for a meager $16 million, they'd gotten a yes from only one other studio, Paramount Pictures. One studio told London it was full up with special-effects thrillers — "We've already done our one movie about people."

From the studio point of view, the goal these days is to make movies that have the kind of easy accessibility that allows them to perform well in international markets, on DVD and in all the other ancillary revenue streams the studios love to boast about to investors. Without the marketing momentum of Oscar nominations, it was hard to make a safe bet — the emphasis, of course, being on "safe" — that any of these films would turn a profit. Anyone in Hollywood could recite the excuses the filmmakers heard wherever they went, whether it was "Ray" (sorry, but African American dramas do zero business overseas), "Million Dollar Baby" (geez, too old-fashioned and downbeat), "Sideways" (how do you sell a movie about wine-tasting slobs with two actors no one's ever heard of?) or "The Aviator," which looked like a bad bet being a $116-million movie directed by Martin Scorsese, who had always gone over budget and never directed a movie that made close to $100 million in the U.S.

What a difference a few years of bottom-line obsession has made in Hollywood. In 1997, with Leonardo DiCaprio on board as the star, two studios ended up spending $200 million to make James Cameron's Oscar-winning "Titanic." Today, even though DiCaprio remains a huge international star, it was financier King, not a studio, who took the risk on "The Aviator." Don't think DiCaprio doesn't know it. Hanging in King's office in Santa Monica is a framed picture of the star kneeling in front of one of the film's biplanes, with the hand-scrawled inscription: "To Graham, thank you for being the only one to have the [guts] to make my dream a reality!"

It's no wonder why King alone has produced three best picture nominees in the last five years: "The Aviator," "Gangs of New York" and "Traffic." Unlike the studios, King, who bankrolls his films by selling off the rights in foreign territories, is in the risk-taking business. He says "The Aviator" met with rejection everywhere, even with DiCaprio attached to star. Everyone was scared that Scorsese would be uncontrollable. "The studios all went, 'Pass, pass, we don't like it,' " King told me recently. "And yet they were happy to turn around and green-light some very ordinary action-adventure movie you could see any day of the week."

If there's any lesson to be drawn from Tuesday's Oscar hoopla, it's not just about movie financing but the absence of studio creativity. Of the five best picture nominees, only "Finding Neverland" went through a studio development process, where the studio pays a writer, approves a cast and puts up the money for the production. All the other pictures were made like independent movies, with no studio interference and with essentially only one person making the big decisions. The studios do market and distribute these films and get some of the glory, but it's not the same as taking the risk required to make them.

When you're doing a remake of a TV show, it hardly matters whether the studio marketing chief is in the room, lobbying for a younger cast or more teen-friendly toilet humor. But when it comes to art, the equation is pretty simple: The less meddling, the better the movie. I read scripts all the time that have dozens of different color pages, a sign that they've been endlessly picked apart by various studio kibitzers. When Hilary Swank got the script for "Million Dollar Baby," she was shocked to see it had all white pages — no one had done any rewrites at all. There was only one person making the creative decisions: Eastwood.

According to Eastwood, he learned not to mess with a good thing from his mentor, Don Siegel, who directed five Eastwood films, including "Dirty Harry." "I've learned when you have a good draft of a script, you just shouldn't mess with it anymore," Eastwood explains. "When I worked with Don, he'd get a script he liked and say, 'Let's not kill it with improvement.' "

Maybe not taking no for an answer isn't such a bad career move. "Ray" director Taylor Hackford had the rights to the film for nearly 15 years before he got it made. Payne cut the budget for "Sideways" over and over before he got it down to a number at which someone would agree to back the film.

Eastwood has now made two Oscar best picture nominees in a row (last year's "Mystic River" is the other) for which he had to waive his salary to get them off the ground. He considers it a small price to pay for the opportunity to make a good movie. "If I picked the pictures, I'd probably lose the studio a lot of dough because I'd always pick the risky projects," he says with a low chuckle. "The studios would like to not take any risk, but there's no such thing. If you want to make a good movie, you always take a risk."

[C-Desecration-]

I really like rob, and I've never read anything by this Patrick guy, but if that article up there was what rob got in a fuss over . . .
Well rob's letter seemed very childish. Unless there was some joke in there that I didn't get (he was serious, right?). Because if not. :rolleyes:


Edit:
Are you sure that was the article? Because rob said "For the record, Patrick, your research is shabby as well. My next film is not "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo 2." It's "Deuce Bigelow: European Gigolo," in theaters EVERYWHERE August 12th, 2005." And in that article the patrick guy never even mentioned "deurce bigelow: male gigolo 2". He just said a follow-up to deuce bigelow: male gigolo.

[Fisting Ackbar]

Rob Schneider der puh der puh der! Der puh derrdilly der puh der! Until one day, der ter pa der ta der!




Enough said.

[The Mack]

Fancy, you don't need to apologize. The WHOLE article changed absolutely nothing. Bib Rob looks no better or worse because of it. He still put on a hissy fit over some criticism. You had the most important part of the article, you just left out the fluff of Rob shamelessly fluffing his movie. When people are quoted from an interview or an article, no one includes every sinlge word the person said.

[Damone]

I love how Rob got in that final plug for his movie at the end of the letter.

[Nachokoolaid]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
[pointless aside]



Seriously though, Rob Scheider sounds like a dick for getting so worked up over some guy's negative review. Surely he's used to that kind of criticism? Otherwise he must be pretty miserable.

Yeah, I can see Schneider over reacting a bit, but what if somene called your life's work shit? Worthless shit! That would get to me.

[Nachokoolaid]

Originally posted by C-Desecration-

Well rob's letter seemed very childish. Unless there was some joke in there that I didn't get (he was serious, right?). Because if not. :rolleyes:



It's obvious Rob wrote that a little bit tongue in cheek in order to plug his film. I think it's funny. He keeps making subtle hints about it, and then gets the plug in at the end. I think that was the reason for the whole thing. He probably wasn't even that upset.
Bib Rob looks no better or worse because of it. He still put on a hissy fit over some criticism. You had the most important part of the article, you just left out the fluff of Rob shamelessly fluffing his movie. .

Yeah, I think this was planned. I think that's the part he wanted everyone to see, so Fancy editing it out is quote ironic.


I love how Rob got in that final plug for his movie at the end of the letter.
Me too. It shows that he was in it for the publicity.