He died 7 years ago, it's not like he died a couple of years ago.

As mentioned before, many actors, not just Val Kilmer, have done things like he did to separate himself from other actors.

Maybe his creative genius will inspire a writer, director, or studio to make a movie.

Instead of those fools being some damn negative, why don't they go out and do something good for the community.

Unreal that people would even try to make this into something negative.

Those Hollywood ***s need to get a life

I personally know two of these people, and have employed one of them. They are the last people on earth who would ever "crave attention," and the farthest thing from trolls I can imagine. The one who worked for me - Drew - was recently hand-picked by David Fincher to be part of Fincher's new docuseries on the history of film. He's one of the smartest, most practical people I know.

Again, these "Critics are bad/bitter/attention-craving" [fart noise] hot takes are just so lazy and dumb.

But whatever. TexAgs has made up its mind, so I'll shut up now.

It's about time.

And I love how you play the victim and / or are so passive aggressive…. "Look at me, I really don't agree with them… but I do." "I employed one of them… who cares…

Make a movie or something

"I see where they're coming from but don't completely agree" is a perfectly rational position to take. As is "I don't completely agree with this person, but I know he's not an attention-seeking troll."

Guys like you always assume the worst in people, are often incapable of understanding nuance/context, and frequently paint me as some disingenuous liar. When it *is* possible to be relatively neutral on an issue, and find the discourse itself more interesting than planting a flag and taking a hard stance either way.

I know that doesn't compute for some of you, but that's the mindset you've chosen, and I'm used to it by now.

TCTTS said:

---

"I see where they're coming from but don't completely agree" is a perfectly rational position to take. As is "I don't completely agree with this person, but I know he's not an attention-seeking troll."

Guys like you always assume the worst in people, are often incapable of understanding nuance/context, and frequently paint me as some disingenuous liar. When it *is* possible to be relatively neutral on an issue, and find the discourse itself more interesting than planting a flag and taking a hard stance either way.

I know that doesn't compute for some of you, but that's the mindset you've chosen, and I'm used to it by now.

---

This post is so full with "pot meet kettle", I don't have the patience or drive to type it all out.

This has gotten old

It's a fair point. I don't know them, they very well may not be seeking attention.

But "****ing deranged", "unethical at best"? Please. They are dramatic takes in my opinion, which totally screams "look at me". Maybe the footage was in bad taste. I don't think so. There's plenty of precedent to go by.

File5 said:

---

TCTTS, one thing I'd appreciate if you could expound a little more on: What IS the difference between this and a studio doing it? I read your posts but don't understand how they could criticize this and not other biopics...I fear in the political discussion that this point was lost. It does indeed scream of others being jealous of not having put something similar out first, and that if they had the chance they would have given a full coordinated PR campaign and to much fanfare. Because IMO he gave it an honest go and delivered it well and with dignity, which is more than I can say for many artists I've seen, especially in Hollywood (and I agree you're hard on them at times as well). Just don't understand that difference even after reading your posts. Thanks

---

Again, just to be clear, I'm not saying I agree with the negative sentiments. But from the comments I've read online, as best I can surmise, this is what it comes down to...

A studio...

... often has the family/estate on board, in advance, after much negotiation, agreed upon stipulations, etc.
... usually doesn't make a biopic so relatively "soon" after the subject's death.
... is a massive group of people coming together - in an "officially" capacity - to tell the story of one person. It's a dynamic where in the subject is "honored" above the individuals, it's a team effort, etc.

All in contrast to this actor, who...

... does not yet have the blessing of the family/estate.
... is making/releasing this relatively "soon" after the subject's death.
... is one individual who is arguably using this solely to advance his career, and thus, by the very nature of the piece, making it more about himself than Williams, while arguably exploiting Williams' tragic life. (To that end, a lot of people simply find it to be an overly schmaltzy exploitation at that, and maybe not the best scene to have chosen, given the situation, seeing as Williams also died tragically after a life of drug use and depression.)

Now, the counters to all that would be...

• Ultimately, the studio is "using" the subject to make money, no different than the actor is "using" the subject to advance his career.
• Seven years isn't that "soon," and, should this ever get made, it'll likely have been at least decade by the time it comes out.
• A screenwriter slaving over a Robin Williams biopic on spec (meaning on the writer's own accord, not getting paid to do so), in the hopes of selling it to a studio, is no different, and arguably far more effort, than what this actor is doing here. So why aren't these people getting as pissed at all the biopics written on spec by writers simply trying to make a name for themselves?
• Similarly, this actor might very well be just as passionate about Williams as the theoretical screenwriter presumably is.
• This actor is a hustler! He had the balls to not only shoot and likely pay for this entire thing himself, but pull it off in convincing fashion. Game should respect game, and all that.

Again, I get both sides here, though I'm increasingly leaning more and more toward, "Eh, nothing to get upset about, give the kid props." Regardless, I'm not going to get super pissed at and name-call those expressing their gut reactions in the moment, reactions that do have *some* merit. In other words, they're not just a bunch of jealous assh*les.

I have two tenants above my garage - a couple, one of whom is an actor - and of course he sent me this earlier tonight. Now, inevitably, I'm going to see this guy waltzing down my driveway any day now. I, for one, am a terrible actor, so pretending I didn't just get in an internet fight about him may prove somewhat of a challenge...

Steve Jobs died in 2011 and had two biopics come out within four years of his death (the first one only two years after). That's the main one that comes to mind.

BenTheGoodAg said:

---

Critics like this crave attention, and a hot take and a Twitter account is an easy way for them to feel empowered. I say stop feeding the trolls and they go away.

That's why so many more people are "outraged" at the tiniest **** these days.

---

Agreed, the entire purpose of posting on twitter for most people (or really any social media) is attention. The people acting like this is some grave injustice are no different, just trying to get more engagement and validation from the continuously outraged Twitter mob, with a side of an intellectual superiority complex. Next week I'm sure they'll be onto the next piece of fake outrage that has no material impact on their daily lives.

TCTTS said:

---

It's my mistake. I never should have said a word.

---

You are correct.

Well this certainly has blowed up since I posted one page 1. Yikes.

But hey, if we ever needed validation if whether or not film is art all you gotta do is point someone to this thread and that'll confirm it to be a hard YES.

Film can invoke so many different feelings depending on a persons background and experiences. And consider this….I can't think of anyone that would be more difficult to do something like this for as an actor as Robin Williams. Just as Jim Carrey is the man of a 1,000 faces, you can RW is the man of 1,000 voices.

No one probably thought this could be done. How many people can honestly say they've ever seen a spot on impersonation of Robin? The only one that comes to mind is a Jeopardy skit from SNL and that was so-so at best. So seeing something that was thought to be impossible is going to catch folks off guard at the least.

I think the other issue here is how he passed away. We now know this man was suffering mentally with internal demons for a while, so much so he decided the only solution was to take his own life. It wasn't old age, a car accident, or an accidental drug overdose. It'll make it harder for some folks then to see him portrayed on a screen so we'll, because let's be honest….the first thing I thought when I saw that clip was, "Oh yeah. He's still dead because of suicide. And that really sucks."

I think a good comparison would be Steve Irwin. So many people loved that man for his passion for animals. Every once in a while I'll pull up old guest appearances he did on late night talk shows. His enthusiasm was so infectious you can still feel it today just watching on your phone.

Steve has been gone a lot longer than Robin. But I can promise you this if a 5 minute clip came out of a sample of a bio-pic about him and it was an actor doing a spot on impersonation, I wouldn't like it. Heck I'd probably hate it. And I wouldn't want to see it, even though I'm sure it would be interesting. That's just how I'd be.

So give folks some grace. This man meant a lot to people for obvious reasons. The actor did an amazing job and is talented as hell. I'd love to see what can be made out of it.

But if it isn't for you, then I get it.

TCTTS said:

---

It's my mistake. I never should have said a word.

---

There's an interesting debate in the thread, buried under some hyperbole.

MSFC Aggie said:

---

Uhm....who's the girl playing Pam Dawber?

---

My first thought was, "How did they get Katy Perry for this role?"

TCTTS, thanks for taking the time to provide a well-reasoned and balanced reply, I can empathize much better now with both "sides" based on your post. Appreciate your insight into this industry in general! It certainly is an interesting one, where creativity, money, and image collide in epic ways.

What the hell does Redstone think though?

Baron Von Flag Smasher said:

---

What the hell does Redstone think though?

---

He reviewed the first dailies on this project.

Lame Hollywood white people are acting like someone drew a cartoon of Mohammad.