TCTTS said:

---

It's not the *idea* of the biopic that's rubbing these guys the wrong way. You're right in that plenty of biopics have been made about deceased people, all portrayed by actors essentially doing similar impressions to this, met with very few complaints.

Rather, it's that this guy is *using* a relatively recently deceased person - in such schmaltzy/maudlin fashion - as a means to forward his own career, in a cash-grab kind of way. He's clearly trying to will this project into existence, and doing so in a very "everyone look at me and look what I can do" kind of way. It's just… a lot. And ultimately more about him than Williams.

On the one hand, if I was this talented, and had the idea to create something like this, I'd probably do the same thing. I'm not saying I'm above it (though I'd at least try not to make something so mawkish). There's a certain hustle here that I respect. But on the other hand, it really does feel kind of gross to go to THIS length to showcase your impression of a beloved actor, one who had addiction/depression issues of his own and ultimately committed suicide, to advance your career.

I don't know, I see both sides here and it's a fine line. There's just something a little proud-and-oblivious-theater-kid-doing-Simple-Jack about this whole thing that kind of weirds me out.

---

I truly get the distinction and can see both sides of the coin. And, I think I even agree to a certain extent with both sides. Having said that, I think like so many things it comes down to intention and a lot of people are pretending they are sure of the intention when they likely have no idea.

For example, all of those other biopics that portrayed deceased people were the brainchild of SOMEONE who pushed the project until it was greenlit and made. Say it was a writer - that person devoted a lot of their time, talent and energy to get the project made. You could say that's no different than this guy, he just happens to be an actor so WE all see the startup/early process.

So now consider the intent for pushing the project. Take the hypothetical writer for a biopic first: if he was pushing the project because he loves the subject or was inspired by the person, or he believes there is beautiful message to portray, then we don't think of that as exploiting the subject and their death. Now, if that writer is just banking for a cash grab, that's more untasteful. Why would the distinction be any different for this guy, just because he happens to be an actor who is pushing the project? If he is pushing for it because Robin Williams inspired him or there is an important story to tell about depression/suicide/substance, etc., why is that wrong? Now, if he is only doing this as a cash grab to push his career because he happens to do a good Robin Williams impression, that naturally seems more distasteful. I just don't know how anyone commenting positively or negatively about his intentions could really know one way or the other.

My main point is that this guy shouldn't be hammered just because he's an actor pushing for a project to be made using the talents at his disposal whereas someone in a different role (producer, writer, director) would be thought of differently doing the same thing only because we don't see it play out.

If the result is the same whats it matter what the intention was? The audience doesn't see the intention. I don't think 99.99% of people sitting in a movie theater think "I wonder how passionate the writer was about this topic"

helloimustbegoing said:

---

The guy's trying to promote himself. Should he just send out headshots like everyone else and wait by the phone? What a great way to get noticed, clearly he's creative beyond just a great impression.

---

Worked for this guy:

Quote:

---

I just liked his impression, and I don't think it's an easy one to do either.

---

Same. Incredible how spot on it is. I would watch an entire film of this.

I didn't always agree with Robin Williams' views, personal choices, or film choices - but I always found him to be incredibly talented and fascinating. Anytime I saw him being interviewed, he could always make me laugh. His "Inside the Actor Studio" with James Lipton is my all-time favorite of that series, because he basically pauses the interview to take a woman's scarf and started to make an entire comedy routine out of it off the cuff. Like it was nothing. Such a funny man. As a child of the 90's, 'Hook', 'Aladdin' and 'Mrs. Doubtfire' will always be special to me.

I could see a biopic on him being very much like a comedian version of 'Patch Adams' - tragedy mixed in with comedy and humanity.

Let's be real. How many of you turds didn't know what maudlin was, heard someone else use it to describe this, and then use it yourselves to make yourself sound cooler?

Quote:

---

Something about it just feels... gross...

---

So, par for the course in how movies get made?

That's some next level pretentious dewshbaggery for these actors and hollywood people to be upset at this. Reeks of jealousy.

MASAXET said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

It's not the *idea* of the biopic that's rubbing these guys the wrong way. You're right in that plenty of biopics have been made about deceased people, all portrayed by actors essentially doing similar impressions to this, met with very few complaints.

Rather, it's that this guy is *using* a relatively recently deceased person - in such schmaltzy/maudlin fashion - as a means to forward his own career, in a cash-grab kind of way. He's clearly trying to will this project into existence, and doing so in a very "everyone look at me and look what I can do" kind of way. It's just… a lot. And ultimately more about him than Williams.

On the one hand, if I was this talented, and had the idea to create something like this, I'd probably do the same thing. I'm not saying I'm above it (though I'd at least try not to make something so mawkish). There's a certain hustle here that I respect. But on the other hand, it really does feel kind of gross to go to THIS length to showcase your impression of a beloved actor, one who had addiction/depression issues of his own and ultimately committed suicide, to advance your career.

I don't know, I see both sides here and it's a fine line. There's just something a little proud-and-oblivious-theater-kid-doing-Simple-Jack about this whole thing that kind of weirds me out.

---

I truly get the distinction and can see both sides of the coin. And, I think I even agree to a certain extent with both sides. Having said that, I think like so many things it comes down to intention and a lot of people are pretending they are sure of the intention when they likely have no idea.

For example, all of those other biopics that portrayed deceased people were the brainchild of SOMEONE who pushed the project until it was greenlit and made. Say it was a writer - that person devoted a lot of their time, talent and energy to get the project made. You could say that's no different than this guy, he just happens to be an actor so WE all see the startup/early process.

So now consider the intent for pushing the project. Take the hypothetical writer for a biopic first: if he was pushing the project because he loves the subject or was inspired by the person, or he believes there is beautiful message to portray, then we don't think of that as exploiting the subject and their death. Now, if that writer is just banking for a cash grab, that's more untasteful. Why would the distinction be any different for this guy, just because he happens to be an actor who is pushing the project? If he is pushing for it because Robin Williams inspired him or there is an important story to tell about depression/suicide/substance, etc., why is that wrong? Now, if he is only doing this as a cash grab to push his career because he happens to do a good Robin Williams impression, that naturally seems more distasteful. I just don't know how anyone commenting positively or negatively about his intentions could really know one way or the other.

My main point is that this guy shouldn't be hammered just because he's an actor pushing for a project to be made using the talents at his disposal whereas someone in a different role (producer, writer, director) would be thought of differently doing the same thing only because we don't see it play out.

---

Thank you for posting a reasoned, well-written response that I completely agree with and illuminated my thinking somewhat. These are all great points.

Once more, for the record, I don't 100% share the opinions of the people I posted. I just saw an interesting conversation being had online - those were only a small fraction of the tweets I could remember throughout the day that I saw - and thought the discourse was worth sharing.

That said, to those here who clearly hate Hollywood but continue to post on this board for some reason, none of the primary people I quoted are "jealous." None of them are actors. None of them are aspiring writers. I've been following them for years and they're not those types. I know it's hard to believe, but some people have different opinions than you. It doesn't mean they're the wrong opinions, or that they're evil hypocritical liberals or whatever. They have their perfectly valid reasons for finding this distasteful, just like you have your reasons for finding certain things distasteful that maybe others don't.

If you've seen the documentary Val… Val Kilmer did things like this and I bet others have as well. Not sure why people are so upset, maybe they are jealous because they are "critics" and not real actors.

In fact those cats are pretty much losers…. Going to critique films

The "critics are jealous failures" trope is so lazy, tired, and cliched. The vast majority of them that I know and follow *chose* to be critics/journalists as a profession. They're not failed filmmakers. They simply love the medium enough that they wanted to make a career out of studying it and writing about it. These people want everything they see to be good, and they want to see people in the industry succeed. But they're also going to call out opportunists who they believe might be doing something as a blatant cash-grab/career advancement.

The valid criticism here is the one MASAXET pointed out; that perhaps what they're not considering is that this actor truly does love Robin Williams and has every intention of honoring him, in the same way a writer writing a script about Williams would (especially one on spec, meaning not paid in advance, and would require more "free" time and effort than even this actor put into this piece).

My point is, we don't always have to jump straight to this insipid "f/ck Hollywood and all these jealous assh/les" posturing, in the same way these critics shouldn't jump straight to "this is clearly just a cash grab" posturing.

But their chosen profession is to critique something. Sure, they love the industry and want to praise what is good and criticize what is not so they can "make it better". Some of them are probably doing this because that's who they are: miserable people who bash everything.

Some of those whose tweets you shared showed us that is the case for them. If we went back and looked at a lot of their tweets we might find a lot of general griping and bashing. My social media has plenty of people that do nothing but post about how unhappy they are about this or that.

I told them to find GripeBook instead of FaceBook because it's all they do. One of the biggest complainers (this is shocking, I know) lived in L.A. for decades and her kids worked in tv and movies and stage. She would make a great critic because she has industry insider experience and she gripes a lot.

Those critics all seem similar. Just looking for something to jump on so they can hopefully have a tweet that goes viral and they can get 15 minutes somewhere.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

--Teddy Roosevelt.

Odd analogy.

A car gets wear and tear and things break over time or from external factors like weather or operator error or lack of scheduled maintenance.

Does the content of a movie break or have external factors once it has been put onto "film" (digital or otherwise)? No. People poured their minds and emotions and finances and bodies into making that product. Once it's "printed", it's done. Yeah, maybe the CGI doesn't hold up over years or something like that, but at release it should be good. The content doesn't degrade like a car does the second you drive it off the lot.

You can cherry pick a couple of the people you know that are wonderful and love the industry, but there are some Darren Rovell and Stephen A. Smith types in Hollywood that just want to complain and get noticed for their hot takes.

That's what some of this looks like. They can't be happy for this young guy who took the leap and put himself out there. They had to go crap on it immediately.

The broad brush works on a lot of those people you quoted/shared.

aTmAg said:

---

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

--Teddy Roosevelt.

---

"Who wants free stuff?"

FDR

The Milkman said:

---

If the result is the same whats it matter what the intention was? The audience doesn't see the intention. I don't think 99.99% of people sitting in a movie theater think "I wonder how passionate the writer was about this topic"

---

I don't disagree - I'm pointing out a difference that may escape some of the people who are criticizing this particular project. If they didn't have those same thoughts for a similar project that was pushed by a non-actor (just because they didn't see the sausage get made), then they aren't consistently seeing the big picture.

This thread made me think of Julia Roberts forgetting to recognize Erin Brockovich after accepting an Oscar for her portrayal of Erin Brockovich.

Cromagnum said:

---

Let's be real. How many of you turds didn't know what maudlin was, heard someone else use it to describe this, and then use it yourselves to make yourself sound cooler?

---

Try using "mawkish" in a sentence.

aTmAg said:

---

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

--Teddy Roosevelt.

---

Word.

TCTTS said:

---

I Am A Critic said:

---

Cromagnum said:

---

Let's be real. How many of you turds didn't know what maudlin was, heard someone else use it to describe this, and then use it yourselves to make yourself sound cooler?

---

Try using "mawkish" in a sentence.

---

I'm a writer. Sorry I use "fancy" words. JFC.

---

Maybe its because I read a lot growing up, but I don't care what 'reading level' people write at. It's a little annoying when people go out of their way to basically pack in a lot of elevated language into one paragraph, but one word you aren't familiar with in a sentence should be no big deal. Use the context it's in, not hard to figure out.

I do think some writers/critics do it to make up for the lack of substance and quality in their own opinion. A sort of subconscious thing. Especially since you should really be writing to the level of your reader.

TCTTS said:

---

That said, to those here who clearly hate Hollywood but continue to post on this board for some reason

---

Oh jeez.... you are so easily triggered.

This is the Entertainment board. You do not own it and it is not the Hollywood board.

Please forgive us normal people for being able to separate our appreciation of art from our dislike of the antics and opinions of the artist. All you are missing is your standard shot at F16.

Because it's not the "Hollywood Circle Jerk" board. This is an entertainment board to discuss and even critique various forms of entertainment.

You take attacks on Hollywood way too personally. If I see something posted that I disagree with or have a problem with, i'm going to post it. That's the point of an internet board.

I won't speak for others, but i tend to respond so vehemently to problems I have with Hollywood BECAUSE I love movies so much. It upsets me when it gets harder and harder to consume an artform I love so much without having to have viewpoints and bs shoved down my throat.

It's the same stupid argument with people on the Premium board. Someone criticizes the football team, and an idiot's response is, "then don't watch it!" It's the passion for the thing itself that fuels the critical response.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Because it's not the "Hollywood Circle Jerk" board. This is an entertainment board to discuss and even critique various forms of entertainment.

You take attacks on Hollywood way too personally. If I see something posted that I disagree with or have a problem with, i'm going to post it. That's the point of an internet board.

I won't speak for others, but i tend to respond so vehemently to problems I have with Hollywood BECAUSE I love movies so much. It upsets me when it gets harder and harder to consume an artform I love so much without having to have viewpoints and bs shoved down my throat.

It's the same stupid argument with people on the Premium board. Someone criticizes the football team, and an idiot's response is, "then don't watch it!" It's the passion for the thing itself that fuels the critical response.

---

It just gets old seeiing the same "I hate liberals" schtick pop-up every now and then. Yes, he could probably just ignore it, but people could just also not include it. Since it has nothing to do with discussing the movie/show or whatever it is.

DallasTeleAg said:

---

Because it's not the "Hollywood Circle Jerk" board. This is an entertainment board to discuss and even critique various forms of entertainment.

You take attacks on Hollywood way too personally. If I see something posted that I disagree with or have a problem with, i'm going to post it. That's the point of an internet board.

I won't speak for others, but i tend to respond so vehemently to problems I have with Hollywood BECAUSE I love movies so much. It upsets me when it gets harder and harder to consume an artform I love so much without having to have viewpoints and bs shoved down my throat.

It's the same stupid argument with people on the Premium board. Someone criticizes the football team, and an idiot's response is, "then don't watch it!" It's the passion for the thing itself that fuels the critical response.

---

This right here is the root of our fundamental disagreement. Because I'm all for critiquing Hollywood, movies, television, etc. I do it here all the time. And if you don't think I sh/t on Hollywood myself, then you don't read all of my posts. I call them out on their crap all the time, as I'm often on the receiving end of some of their most asinine shenanigans in my day-to-day work. I know how f/cking stupid this industry can be, first hand, on a daily basis.

But you and others seem to think that injecting POLITICAL complaints and name-calling into the conversation is fair game on this board, and falls under "various forms of critique."

It doesn't.

That's what F16 is for.

Critique the "liberal Hollywood agenda" and do all the dumb name-calling you guys want over there. But not here. Because all it ever amounts to is soap boxing and virtue signaling and does nothing but stir the pot and serve selfish, political purposes.

Yes, there are at times valid discussions to be had on that front. I'm not denying that. But there are people in this very thread who seemingly never post on this board, who I can only assume are just waiting and lurking to do a quick, "I hate liberals" drive by and nothing more. That sh/t is just so ubiquitous here, gets so f/cking old, and is hardly ever anything of substance. For that very reason, it should ALL be relegated to F16, as the mods have made clear time and time again (save, of course, for when the movie or show itself is political by nature, then I'm all about having that conversation here).