Audio Edtion – Sept 27th Part A

John Campea 56 Comments

Hey there folks. Today’s installment of The Audio Edition Mail Mag is being broke into 2 parts. This first part is me addressing 2 issues that have been flying around. First of all is the Dave from FIlmrot issue. The second is the Richard Brunton issue. I’ve split this into 2 parts so that if you’re not interested in the Dave and Richard situation, then you can skip this and just go on to part B which is the “regular” mail bag stuff (which will be up later tonight).

Anyway, you can hear my comments regarding these things here. Man I’m long winded sometimes.

The actual “mail bag” part of today’s Audio Edtion is now up. You should see it just about this post. Enjoy!

Comment with Facebook

About John Campea

View all posts by John Campea →

You may like these posts

56 thoughts on “Audio Edtion – Sept 27th Part A”

  4. And ALSO – I agree with some of the criticisms of the readers on here.

    You’re a bunch of friggin’ fanboys on here who are drooling over another the man. Get over yourselves.

    I’m sure it makes John feel great about himself to get such a defense, but he’s a big kid now. He has a major platform at his personal will to address issues, and he’s now done that.

    But way to keep up the lame-o blogger war. Keep it up!

  5. To the guy saying insulting comments about John disappear from here.

    I have to say that’s not true whatsoever, at least in my personal experience.

    As John can perhaps attest to, I’ve said some pretty mean things about him on here (criticizing his documentary trailer and his writing ability being among them).

    I’ve also complimented him on some things he’s done on here (and I’m growing to further appreciate his blog).

    I’ve never seen those posts disappear.

    I give this to John – for the most part he pretty much just cringes and lets things happen on here. I have respect for John because of this.

  6. Good grief,
    Who are these people? Refering to JIMMYTHEGENT.
    It must get boring being falsely accused of racism and homophobia all of the time John.
    Please JIMMYTHEGENT, please listen to John’s answer to charges of racism etc, he has repeated them many, many times on the Audio Edition and in various posts. I am getting fucking bored of having to listen to him repeat it ad nauseaum just because you fail to do your research.
    It can’t be a lack of intelligence on your part, I mean, you seem to be able to construct a sentence, and your grammar is ok – although, I wouldn’t have passed on that opportunity to use a semi-colon after ‘Read the Movie Blog for a while’. It must therefore be concluded that you are either lazy, or unable to understand context and irony.

  7. Is it me or is everyone blowing everything way out of proportion. Take a step back and look at whats going on in the world… now look at this situation… WHO CARES??. Lets just all forget about it and get back to the MOVIES. Works for me :-D

    He who angers you conquers you. ~Elizabeth Kenny

  8. In response to Eric:

    Read The Movie Blog for a while, you’ll see that John isn’t particularly fond of gays (see Ellen, Brokeback etc.) and negroes that he feels doesn’t know their place (see Chris Tucker, Wesley Snipes, etc). Anywho, he only removes posts that are personally offensive to him, and 12 Monkeys “John, lay the smack down on those 2 AIDS filled flesh pole lovers!!!” doesn’t offend Mr. Campea.

    Now, don’t get me wrong. If John left ALL comments up, I would have no problem with this policy. But he’s already proven that he takes down a LOT of comments he doesn’t agree with, and he’s also a big fan of obsessively reading his comments (see two comments above). So by not taking it down, John is giving a big thumbs up to AIDS jokes.

    Also, JC, just for the record. Comments like “However, like a typical Italian, when someone shoves me, I can shove back 3x harder and overract sometimes,” is an incredible ignorant thing to say. Please, leave us Italians out of it and speak only for yourself. Thank you, sir.

  9. I think it’s probably best not to mention the ‘Dave-from-filmrot episode’ again John; although it was a mildly entertaining diversion, you don’t want to drag yourself down to ‘Dave-from-filmrot’s’ level of mediocraty too often methinks (you indicated that you wouldn’t so that’s good).

    As to the Richard Brunton revelation, I am almost disapointed to learn the truth. The International Friends had been speculating on that one for so long that it had, sort of, passed into Movie Blog mythology. Ah well, the spell is broken. I can’t see how (if he is) Richard can complain, after all, the MB hasn’t exactly collapsed without his input.

    Trust that brainless post from 12 monkeys to be right at the top! I’d advise removing it but I’m opposed to censorship.

    Aah fuck it… remove it, you can take liberty too far!!!

  10. Hey Paul,

    Edward is not me, nor vice versa. I have 1-2 people everyday trying to post things in my name… so i keep an eye on all the comments pretty closely. I deleted his post and emailed him. He said it was an accident.

    Considering he clearly wasn’t trying to impersonate or slash me, i beleive him.

    I’m big enough to speak for myself if I feel the need. And if you don’t believe me then you’re a child rapist.

    Cheers!

    ~John

  11. Edward do you hear? and read? the reality is that there are different opinions as John says. And he states in his audio commentary that Richard heard the information 2nd hand. John also called a poster a child rapist. Where am I going wrong?

    Also are you John as the caption showed up when I glanced?

  12. (Apologies John. My mistake)

    To PB – I still fail to see how John owed anything to Richard. How did Richard posting on the site, by his own decision with the understanding in advance that he was just a contributor and would not be receiving any money or any ownership, somehow indebt John to disclose to Richard any details of his personal employment or his personal finances? How is this “untrustworthy”? Did John tell Richard that there would be no money unless he himself made enough to make it his permanent employment? If that was the case, then I would agree with you. However, I see nothing pointing to that. What John made, and where he made it from, was none of Richard’s business.

    With regards to the Lady in the water thread, I must ask what relevance that has to this discussion? In this situation you have a webmaster whom John has publicly endorsed, without warning launch a bitter, scathing and very personal attack on John. In the LITW example, you’re talking about a very provoked response made in a chat thread of John’s own site. I do remember being taken a back by the harshness of John’s response, but it was provoked. John also admitted it was too harsh and pulled the thread. The message that still sits there is –

    “However, like a typical Italian, when someone shoves me, I can shove back 3x harder and overract sometimes. Some people said some really inappropriate things in this thread… and to be fair so did I. So I decided just to wipe the thread out and close these comments. Nothing constructive was coming out of it.”

    Then, in this very podcast John encouraged us to forgive Dave because we all, including himself, do “stupid things” sometimes.

    With all that in mind, I’m still a little confused why you’re bringing it up at all?

    Please note, typing makes it hard to communicate attitude. Please know I’m conversing with you as if we’re sitting over coffee chatting. I’m not trying to sound argumentative.

    Smiles and sunshine!

  14. Edward — “To Eric – The gay bashing thing was clearly John making fun of people who gay bash. He explained he gets attacked all the time. He also addressed it in the comments thread.”

    Just to clarify, I was not saying anything negative about John. I was asking a question regarding John’s feelings on commentors who leave discriminatory comments that could drive visitors away from The Movie Blog. I feel that John does not intentionally attempt to marginalize any of The Movie Blog’s readership.

  15. Edward, for goodness sake. Richard posted a ton of stuff on the MB and as you rightly say he did know that he wasn’t going to get any money. But for Richard to have to read 2nd hand in the press that John was now financially able to quit work and devote full time to the MB seems a tad untrustworthy on John’s part.

    With regards to the ‘Lady in the water’ debate. Yes, John was mildly provoked but for him to reply by calling the poster ‘a child rapist’ seemed way off base. But, perhaps my facts are wrong, so if John can re-post those messages I can accept defeat.

  16. its easy to get caught in that grey area and get concerned about attributions of credit – no piece of information can truly be traced back to one source, at least not with any ease, and in truth most snippets are better off travelling as far and as quickly as possible, so they should appear in more than one location – i often think of it as a true grey area. theres also a trap of believing the writers more important than the information they’re writing about also – doesnt help if the writers to focussed on personal ambitions instead of on what is ultimately their selling point, their individual insight and knowledge, and how they convey it, what it includes. i feel sympathy for both sides, though filmrot didnt exactly clock onto things easily and managed to escalate things by the sounds of it… easily done, but still regretable.

    one answer to this is to not focus so much on feeding off information from one site to another, helps to encourage lazyness anyway (in the reader and the writer) and to think of what you know which can be shared that you dont see being talked about. far better to simply point people into other directions and let them look at stuff for themselves than compensate for them by bringing it over and rehashing it, though this is sometimes apparently done because the person passing info along is adding additional content, opinion, and so on… people do have a habit of expecting much of other sites and not of themselves, that goes for site contributors (myself included, its a symptom of how the internet encourages people to think, i suspect – i’m still trying to figure it out, and ive been online for 15 years, it shifts about a lot, and it’s also different once you regularly put your say in more substantial terms and open it to the public) and for readers of sites too. its a shame.

    anyway, i think john handled everything relatively clearly, though i had slight doubts in parts about minute uses of words, overall i think he’s in the right and has been hard done by.

  18. To all the people who are talking about “John and Dave bickering”, please tell me where John has done any bickering with dave? Looks to me like Dave did all the bickering and John just came on here to give us the run down and support Dave. Damn it’s hard to please some people.

  19. To Beg To Differ – Look into something before commenting on it. The trandformers thing is one John has addressed 100 times. They admitted they were wrong and that it was a mistake, so John let it go and went on posting about Transformers. Read a little.

    To PB – How did John owe Richard anything? John laid out the parameters of the relationship right at the begining. Richard accepted them. How was it any of Richards business what money John made and from where? Also, I remember the “Lady in the Water” incident. Huge difference. John was provoked, he didn’t start it and it was in a thread on his own site. You’re comapring apples to oranges.

    To Eric – The gay bashing thing was clearly John making fun of people who gay bash. He explained he gets attacked all the time. He also addressed it in the comments thread.

    To John – Perfectly managed mate. I’ve read this site a long time and I do miss Richard’s presence, but as you said it seems it was best for all involved. I echo what a lot of others have said here, YOU HAVE MORE CLASS THAN MOST PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET. Good on ya.

  20. About you and this Dave guy? Honestly, I’d like to bang both of your heads together. These juvenile spats are part of the reason why online ‘journalism’ gets so little credit. Both of you, as far as I can tell, have more to offer than petty squabbling.

    I like this site, and I’d like it if we could all get back to talking about films.

  24. I listened to the entire podcast A-side today and I feel that you showed a lot of class in how you addressed these 2 issues. You should be making serious bank doing mediation for the film industry :)

    Like Frank, I too was wondering about the first comment by “12 Monkeys.” I think it’s extremely homophobic and I wonder what your thoughts are on comments that might drive LGBT folks away from your site?

    I’m a big fan of the Movie Blog and hope that it remains an inclusive site filled with wonderful writing, links, and news.

  25. As someone who has contributed to internet movie sites in the past for volunteer basis, I can understand some of Richard’s frustrations. However, I was somewhat taken aback from John’s own admissions. Was the phasing out of Richard a quick process in 2/06? Or was it a communication that happened in phases?

    I don’t know how to take the arguement John gives about “he didn’t really know Richard”. I think…that’s…okay, in my opinion, that’s a bunch of hokum. Having participated in a few internet film sites on a vounteer basis, one of them “promoted” me to help with the upkeep for almost two years before the site went on ‘hiatus’ (where it has been for another two years *sigh*) If someone agrees to write for free at a site, obeys the laws of the webmaster, participates, and has even a bit of loyalty, for one full year…? Trust is earned. Either you trusted him or you didn’t. He could have messed with the site and raised all kinds of choas but instead…he keeps in line, makes suggestions, doesn’t fix what isn’t broken…

    And I have never met, in person, to date, anyone from my former film haunt [Projector Booth], much less my ‘current’ one [CoP], although I do keep in contact with some of these people from time to time, and perhaps one day, a meet and greet will happen.

    In any case, John, I’m glad that you finally cleared this up. before you are loaded with a ton of Urban Legends and you get a call from Snopes.

    As for Dave/Filmrot, I think it showed a lot of class for you to give him the lowdown.

    -Sealer

  26. Hey John —
    I don’t really know what to say about the whole Richard thing as I am a big Filmstaker fan and love his work. As for Dave, well. I retract all statements I made earlier, because it seems like he made an honest mistake, one that all of us could have made. After all, we are all assholes eventually. Good luck, and of course I’ll continue to support Film Rot. Thanks for clearing the air, we were all a little confused, especially with Richard’s abrupt absence and all.

  27. John, I think you handled it the best you could in the given situation, and honestly acted like a man. I’ve had to deal with people on other sites who bash me or attack me simply based on a misinterpretation. So, I think you did great.

  28. Begtodiffer I would respond to your post, but really what’s the point? Your bias is quite apparent. Change the names to something silly, reread it and tell me this was not written with a predetermined agenda in mind.

    John, gave his side of the story. Dave and Richard are free to give theirs as well.

    One final item, research your arguments before presenting them. The Transformer issue was fully discussed and chronicled here. Your lack of knowledge of it indicates a grasping at straws.

    I don’t agree with John on everything, Star Trek is NOT dead!, but its his site and he can run at he sees fit.

    From what I can see, John has been above board on every item that he has been questioned on.

  29. You have got to be kidding.

    When people draw attention to your mistakes (like, the number of films Sofia Coppola has directed) you write it off with some half-assed rationale. (“Only one that mattered”, or something to that effect.)

    Your site is heavy on the subjectivity, which is fine, but then you’ve got to expect criticism. Yet it’s almost impossible to engage in a proper critical debate with you because of your readers. Let’s be frank, your readers give new meaning to the word sycophant. They love you, and that’s great. But you’re not infallible John, and you are quite the hypocrite at times. Those of us who love film, who live for it, and aren’t merely cheerleaders for The Movie Blog ocasionally take offense at things you do/say, and we want to make our positions known. Yet whenever we try, we get beat down by your attack dogs. That’s kind of pathetic.

    Remeber the Transformers affair? You said you would never write about the film again blah blah blah and then, voila, new Transformers news on a daily basis. What’s up with that?

    You let your ego get the better of you John, and it’s a shame. The Movie Blog is a interesting site, and I do like your take on films, even though I nearly always disagree with your opinion. Yet as your readership grew, so did your ego. You began taking more chances, got a bit daring, because you knew you could; your readers loved you that much. What came with that was sloppy and lazy attention to facts and details, and an almost knee-jerk reaction to things.

    You’re a smart guy John, and great at self-promotion, which (sadly) is 2/3rds of the game.

    The whole Richard story sort of reveals a bitter truth. The Movie Blog is more about you, money and chasing ratings/awards than it is about quality and integrity.

    Now, loyal readers of The Movie Blog, fire away.

  30. I find it absolutely frightening that anyone besides the moviebloggers in question would even care much about this business, much less have fanatical minions spreading lies about the opposing party.

    Yes, I think it’s absolutely horrible that John Campea FORCED this Richard person to SLAVE AWAY without pay. He must have had him under some sort of hypnosis.

    *rolls eyes*

  31. 1: The Richard issue. I for one found his stuff too long winded, but I understand a lot of people had the time to read it. Anyway, I for one wasn’t bothered that he moved on. But, for you not to even let the guy know you had quit your job and was financially surviving via the blog (although nothing fancy). He should have been one of the first to know as he supplied a counter balance to your stuff and was an important part of what made your site what it was at that time.

    2. With regard to Dave’s name calling. Please recall your post about ‘The Lady in the Water’. In that you referred twice to one of your MB posters with some of the most disgusting name calling ever. Which later you removed as some MB posters were shocked by your attack. Would you be willing to repost this in full as you seem to keep back ups of all your data?

    3. But, the worst thing about all this is that the Dave issue is so nothing! I’m not even sure why you are bothering with this (unless it’s some odd ego thing). I think you need to concern yourself with saving your energy to complete your film. Your film is what matters in the long run. All this negative crap and name calling bullshit will suck your creativity dry.

    What I reckon you should do is not do any MB stuff at all in october. Just work 100% on your film. Let D,D and B carry the audio stuff and your other posters do the blog content, if they’re friends they’ll support you. And that’s 4 weeks to nail the film edit and get it done.

  32. That’s why I love The Movie Blog so much and what makes it so special. You are so transparent with your readers and really make us feel like a part of the community here. Let me add my name to the list of those giving you a bug thumbs up for how you dealt with this John.

    Some how you found a way to take a shit situation and make everyone look good in it. Dave, hope the lesson is learned. Richard, best of luck with your new projects. Man I love this site.

  33. the ellen thing was misguided..i see what campea was trying to do but the same point could have been made without going so far into phoney gay bashing…having said that it didn;t deserve the attack that dave gave it to the extent he did and daves reaction to me looked like something dave had always wanted to do and saw this as a chance to do it using his outrage at the comments as a reason to not come across as just being an antagonistic….

    i can’t believe how many people think john should not give his side of the story just because dave has finished with it….so dave can say whatever he wants about whoever he wants and the target of his scorn should just accept it and move on without getting a chance to defend themselves?? do you guys work for fox news???

  34. I respect you for how you handled that sitiution John, very classy. A lot of people including myself would have freaked if someone wrote stuff like that about me. It’s good the issue is now closed and we can all move on.

  35. Brilliant. That sir was a clinic on how to properly deal with online conflict. John, you’re setting a trend for the rest of us who work in the biz. Glad to hear about the Richard business, I’ve enjoyed his site too, but have always wondered about things. And I’ve heard some of the false whispers myself. Good job clearing it up.

    Sad to say, I can’t follow your request for endorsing this Dave fellow. There are some lines you don’t cross, and he did. You’re a good man for sticking up for him now, but I’ll just keep my distance.

    “You da man” Campea.

  36. I don’t know what to say about the Dave-thing, but for the Richard-thing it seems to me it was the best move for him since it seems he seemed very entusiastic. Kinda like you raised im then cut him off so he could grow further to be more independent

  38. YOU WROTE DAVE IN ADVANCE LETTING HIM KNOW WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY?? Really? Did you honestly do that? If so, then count me as impressed. I bet he didn’t warn you about his attack.

    So proud of you John, and so proud to be a TMB reader. You’re brining sanity back to the web. You should be a hostage negotiator or something. :)

  41. Bravo John. I could not have said it all better myself. The Dave thing needed to be addressed, and you did it will total class. Top notch.

    I’m also really glad you aired the Richard Stuff. Sounds like it’s a shame you guys aren’t together anymore, but it’s probably for the best for all involved.

    But yet again, well done. You’re a stand up dude and I totally respect how you handled this whole thing. Sweeping it under the rug wouldn’t have been good for anyone, but turning it into a flame war would have been even worse.

    Lets all move on now. I’ll keep visiting Filmrot.

  42. Great to hear your side of the story, John.

    Good job on clearing the air.
    Hope this issue is finally put to bed.

    And to Henrik,
    My apoligies, sir.
    Maybe the lack of audio editions did get me a little irritable.

  43. Frank Galvin I’m all for challenging these high-brows on their own nepotism (I know what it means – that’s why I wrote ‘own’) and pointing out people’s hipocrisy is like my 3rd favorite hobby.

    But when you write something “he took his post down light years ago” you’re pretty much writing your own downfall. Especially with this new crop of fresh “clone troopers” ready to defend the “emperor” without question.

  44. Regarding the CHUD post of yore:

    I definitely encourage people to read the CHUD post. I also don’t think you can read it and honestly call it “slander”. John praised CHUD, calling it a better site than his own, and said that the particular article was only _one_ example of a general problem he’s noticed in the online movie community (and that the Movie Blog had done similar things in the past).

    I don’t know about anyone else, but that reads to me like John is being very careful not to slander (“state something false and injurious to a person’s reputation”) CHUD. Instead he was arguing that you really shouldn’t insult anyone for their opinions, but instead criticize the opinions themselves (i.e. explain why you disagree) or people’s behavior. (To be fair, Devin did criticize the audience’s behavior of booing, but John was arguing that the article had a “holier-than-thou” of calling people bad movie fans because they disliked a film.) Maybe you think John was making a mountain out of a molehole or that he missed the mark, but at least he did it in a polite way.

    I’m not saying John or the Movie Blog should be immune to criticism either. (The Ellen Oscar post that was involved in this furor is one where I think John phrased things badly and made some mistakes. The piece seems to have been born out of frustration and doesn’t read very well-reasoned.) I just commend John for his attitude that criticism works best when it’s reasoned and not a personal attack (you can see this in most MB posts and reviews and in this episode of the podcast) and that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion. (I hope people realize that the Movie Blog’s subtitle “The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions” is intended to be ironic for just this reason.) That attitude really forces most people to listen to what you’re saying. And isn’t that the point of criticism in the first place?

  45. Aww man! I was looking forward to a serious thrashing! But you know what John, you’re right. It’s time for this thing to be put to bed, and you tucked it in. I seriously don’t think I could have been as big about this as you have been. Little dip shit hits me with a personal attack I would have been all over his ass. But that’s why you’re the man.

  46. Did Frank even listen to the podcast?

    Anyway, John once again you have shown yourself to be the classiest webmaster out there. You delt with this situation with total perfection. Personally I think you treated Dave better than he deserved. Well said sir.

  47. Very considerate of you to give us the option of listening to it instead of forcing us to sift through it all before getting to the mail bag.

    I just don’t know these other folk so i’m not gonna stick up for you or anybody else involved because i only know your side of the story. It just wouldn’t be fair. Plus, if i heard you correctly, you’d rather we all just drop the matter. All i can tell you is that i’ll always be reading and listening to your stuff because it’s clearly layed out, funny, always adknowledges it’s fans, and you all have loud voices, making the podcast the only one on the web that i can listen to with ease.

  48. cant you see that if you had only treated richard with respect and given him a little credit publicly and maybe some dinero, this would have never happenned? you used the guy up, kicked the guy off and changed the locks because you feared him seeking revenge. he slaved for you, and that’s how you treated him. how is that defensable?

  49. Sounds like things are mostly fine. Things did get pretty rabid around here.

    It seems you’re attracting impressionable personalities here who tend to get a bit excited. They are welcome, and all of us love eachother – we are all international friends, right? – but I was happy to hear you implore them to calm down and be friends with everybody.

    Maybe it was just the lack of audio editions (!) that made people a little irritable.

  51. Killin’ ’em with kindness. Smart. Well-thought out podcast, by the way. I don’t know the skinny, but you seem to be sincere.

    One downside to smiling at folks who have it out for you… sometimes it just makes it easier for them to knock your teeth out. ;)

    Good luck!

  52. Or wait, are you somehow a better man because you didn’t take the issue directly to Devon and instead preached lies to your choir? Please, everybody, read the entire post that was written, and then read Devin’s comments. John, you completely slandered the guy and you’re saying it’s okay because you prefaced it with “I think you’re a good writer.” Ask Devin what he thinks of you as a human being, John.

    Also, what’s with the allowing of your readers to wish AIDS on people? Or AIDS jokes at all, really? I know of seven different people who have left SLIGHT criticisms in your comment section, all of those disappeared. AIDS comments stay by the boatload!

    Also, Dave apologized and took down the post light years ago.

    Class all the way, JC!

  53. I reccomend you listen to the Podcast, Frank. He addresses that very issue in the podcast.

    Fact is, there’s a difference between criticising a site’s reaction to a story, and the site (or more personally, the author) himself. As far as I can see, no one was personally attacked in the article…

  54. John, I know I’m a regular at The Movie Blog, but I would give the same advice to anyone.

    I know whatit’s like to receive heat from people through the Internet, especially when you do your best to be fair with everyone. IO don’t know what it’s like to receive it in such a heavy dosage on another site, but I understand the principles. Let me just say that unlike the two people above trying to provoke you, my respect for you only grew with that Podcast. It is a very common occurance for me to lose my temper when just ONE person injustly attacks me, let alone an entire army of websurfers. I was very glad to hear you say that you are continuing to support FilmRot. In fact, I was never a reader of their site, but I just might be one now. I’m going to listen to their podcast and see what it was about. I was pleased that you didn’t attack back.

    I will admit that some of the criticism Dave had about you were legitimate. But there was no reason to personally bash you (or anyone) on the site, whether it’s his or not. I hope this will be the end of it, and I would like you to please do your very best to ignore posters like the ones above. They’re just folk who enjoy drama and shit-slinging, and I certainly hope this is the END of the issue.

    Thank you.

  55. Quote from John Campea on chasitizing other movie websites in a public forum as opposed to just e-mailing their differences: “Personally, I think movie websites, co-movie websites, that’s just not cool to do. You don’t go to somebody else’s website and publicly rebuke them.”

    Care to explain this entry, Johnny?

    https://www.themovieblog.com/archives/2006/09/chud_the_fountain_and_why_people_dont_respect_movie_websites.html

    Do you think Devin might think you’re a wee bit of a hypocrite, Mr. High Road?

Leave a Reply