Talk:Red State (2011 film)

Westboro protest?

While a Wikipedia article is not the place to speculate about hoaxes (talk pages, however...), I question the flat statement that the screening was protested by Fred Phelps and the Westboro family. Not only did the whole affair smack of a (horror movie director/producer/distributor) William Castle promotional stunt (coincidentally also reenacted by Red State's John Goodman in the film Matinee), it was openly billed by Smith as a spectacle: "This is gonna be like watching STAR WARS with Darth Vader right there in the audience!" 75.105.128.54 (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking up to Mel Gibson

In a video interview with Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, Smith said that the claim that he looks up to Mel Gibson is completely off base and untrue. Watch for yourself. http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/blogs/the-travers-take/off-the-cuff-with-peter-travers-kevin-smith-on-his-first-horror-film-red-state-20110307 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.33.221 (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New teaser poster

Kevin Smith asked film critics/journalists to include details of why the new teaser poster was released yesterday (fans donated $1000 dollars to The Wayne Foundation) when they printed or wrote about said poster (see here - [1]). I noticed that the poster has been uploaded here, but nothing has been mentioned about The Wayne Foundation. Should this information be mentioned in the article (under marketing, perhaps)? - JuneGloom Schmooze 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done to an extent - JuneGloom Schmooze 01:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Distributor failure source

Currently the first words under the Marketing section are "After failing to find a distributor." None of the references nearby, or any references I know of, mention any attempt to find a distributor. Actually, recent tweets under Kevin Smith's official account reveal that self-distribution was intended for some time. (tweet 1 and tweet 2)

Can I remove that fragment? --Dfonseca (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

New here. I've been editing this article and certain users have been reverting my edits that include any positive information regarding this film. Considering that I have simply added (working) links to positive reviews in addition to the negative and removing statements such as "Failed to find a distributor" as discussed aboved (not true; the tour for this film was booked long in advance), I fail to see how my edits are 'vandalism'. I am simply adding the good to the bad and trying to balance out the obvious anti-Smith attitude that this page has been edited with. I suggest this page be monitored/temp. locked/whatever; I am not an admin, so it is not up to me, but I would like to see this page treated fairly. Sandroguitar67 (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Refuted--> It is widely contradicted in interviews with the filmmakers of this movie that self-distro was NOT intended for some time other than maybe a backup plan should the film "fail" to find a distributor. Using the filmmaker's stance now (which is biased since he has every reason to spin this) is not veriable according to wikipedia standards.

There is a great article by Variety several days before this refuting all of this. Please observe it before vandalizing this article

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118030610?refCatId=13

"Hiring longtime specialty exec Dinerstein (whose film marketing consultancy also arranges self-distribution deals), bringing aboard Cinetic Media (which arranged service deals for sale titles like last year's Banksy doc "Exit Through the Gift Shop") with co-seller WME, and slapping the word "March" at the end of the teaser trailer has led many to suspect Smith has a self-distribution backup plan should an attractive offer fail to materialize. But is self-distribution or a service deal even an option they're considering? "No," says Gordon. "We want to have someone who loves the movie, understands it, knows how to handle it and get the most out of it."

Indierewired (talk) 03:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

that article also claims that Kevin Smith was planning to auction the film off, something we now know to be a false claim invented by Smith to promote the screening; obviously, in an article promoting something that Smith made up to promote the movie (and his own self-distribution scheme), they can't let the cat out of the bag and admit they're planning to self-distribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You're still not answering as to why my links to positive reviews are being removed. If you want to keep your information in regarding the distribution then feel free to do so, but do not remove positive reviews of the film and then accuse me of vandalism. Sandroguitar67 (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

False... I have answered to it on the page itself, and now here. I have included now ALL of your positive reviews. But frontloading them into the article the way you do while sneaking in weasel words and assertions that are not backed by veriable sources violates wikipedia standards. All you contributions have been restored EXCEPT for you clear attempts at vandalism and NPOV nonsense.Indierewired (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

False? Listen up Dwight, your edit of the article is clearly biased against the film. This movie has not 'failed'; find me a link to an article where anyone who isn't a film blogger (that includes you) states the film 'failed' anything. One link where anyone involved in the production of the film or financing or anything and I'll admit wrong. You're the one using weasel words. The movie hasn't failed, it hasn't done anything - it screened at a film festival to mixed reviews. That is not a failure. No money has been lost. Take YOUR own advice before coming back at me with your accusations. 138.86.164.126 (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Listen up Mickey, I never said the movie failed. The movie failed to find a distributor. And that's what the PRESS is reporting. Kevin Smith for weeks was promising, in verifiable press releases and other statements, that he was going to find a distributor at Sundance. And he made it clear that he was NOT talking about himself. Again, refer to the Variety source in the article that clearly refutes this notion. Just because Kevin Smith is now contradicting himself after failing to follow through on this promises is not my problem. I'm just reporting what happened and I've used many sources in the article to back up this claim. The only source you have is Kevin himself which is a clearly biased source. That's like using O.J. Simpson as a source when asking if he killed his wife.... yeah, not biased at all.lolIndierewired (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So your logic is we should listen to the media for facts? The same media Smith has proven to be time and time again wrong? We should not listen to the guy that actually made the film? Are you mentally handicapped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.91.157 (talk) 04:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Your information is out-dated. The auction, along with seeking a distributor, was clearly a hoax. Smith has said repeatedly that, since the fourth day of production, they were planning to self-distribute, but needed to create a story around it to help launch the film. Smith (and implicitly John Gordon) is pretty upfront that he made misleading statements.

Plus, here's one further step -- clearly, there were people in the room willing to bid on the film. This is a fact verifiable by noting that many of them complained after the fact. So, if they had truly wanted a distributor, they could've gotten one. The article that you cite does not say that the film failed to find a distributor (it actually says that there are a lot of distributors interested); that is your conclusion based on two facts (the article you cite plus what actually happened). However, that's your Original Research; that's unwikipedian. Rather, the proper way to do it is to find sources. Since the only source is what Kevin Smith has said, that is the only source that can be accurately cited. If you would like to quibble over how those words are presented, that is your right, but you have no case for continuing to argue that the statement "Red State failed to find a distributor" is accurate, unless you find a proper source for the claim. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy

Look, you are clearly a Kevin Smith fan with an agenda. Nothing in the article says that Kevin "failed to find a distributor." The article carefully chooses its words, saying he was unable to find one (which is backed by many MANY sources). Also Kevin Smith is a biased source since clearly (as the consensus of sources suggest) he has a good reason to spin this. His POV is already included in this article to balance things. What you are trying to say is that Kevin's opinion/position is more important than the opinion of others in the press when reporting this and, therefore, those other views should be censored. This is a violation of wikipedia standards and is very unencylopedia. I see no reason why both povs cannot be included in this article. For instance, many believe that Nixon rigged the election. But of course Nixon doesn't. Does that mean we shouldn't included the other sources? Is that not a part of that history, whether NIxon likes it or not? Anyhow, whether or not YOU think the auction is a hoax or not isn't important here. What's important is the consensus of material.

P.S. IF you MUST know, the buzz out of Sundance isn't that Kevin failed to find a distributor... it was that he was UNABLE to find a distributor willing to pay him enough money for this film. Initially he wanted at least 4-6 million and options to play it in theaters. However the biggest bid he found was well under that number and, at best, the distributors present were going to do VOD and a direct-to-DVD release with a couple theaters playing the movie. So he didn't fail to find a distributor, but he was unable to find one to justify selling it based on the cost. I should know, I was there at the press screening (if you can call it that) at Sundance. Also, it is believed that Kevin was hoping the Weinsteins were going to buy it at the last minute but Weinstein only showed up to catch some of the flick and then he sorta walked out bored (which insulted Kevin). He planned to tour with his movie all along (that is true) but he had no plans to distribute this way and there is a great "Variety" article in this piece which pretty much disproves any claim that he planned to self-distribute. That was the back up plan here according to the consensus of sources. Please try to reach a consensus here before vandalizing the article again. A compromise was already reached days ago about all of this and you are trying to inject your POV Into all of this which is a violation of wikipedia standards for verifacity.75.174.142.25 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't cited a single source that says that he was unable to find a distributor. Since the claim is obviously hotly contested, it would seem the burden is on you to actually prove it, rather than making claims without sources or citation. Especially given that the context of those quotes has been explained as marketing. I also don't see why the Weinstein claim (which I re-worded, since there is no source that they declined to distribute the film) is in the top of the article and then repeated again, but I'm not trying to vandalize by completely re-writing. I'm only interested in keeping it accurate. You can claim I'm biased all you want; it's still not a source. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy

Not here to enter this discussion (yet). Based upon what I have read, though, I would point out there really isn't a need to keep adding to your comments making them even longer (see WP:EXHAUST). Also "So your logic is we should listen to the media for facts? The same media Smith has proven to be time and time again wrong? We should not listen to the guy that actually made the film?" - Wikipedia is about verifiabilty, not truth and all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources; "Are you mentally handicapped?" - there is no need to be rude with your comments either. HrZ (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editor HrZ above. Look, thatGuamGuy 69.123.136.21, please keep this civil. Name calling doesn't help, k? Also I want to point out that I never once said "Kevin Smith FAILED to find a distributor." Again, I did NOT say that. What I did say is what the press is saying again and again, that "he didn't find a distributor." This is true and verifiable and backed up by MULTIPLE sources. Kevin Smith and producer Jonathan Gordon were in fact looking for a distributor. Kevin Smith admits that himself. If you read Kevin Smith's twitter and blog he said he stopped looking for a distributor because he could not find a distributor willing to pay him enough $$$ to justify the marketing costs for the film. So I'm not sure WHY you have a problem with my contributions? Never once do I suggest otherwise and it sounds like we are more in agreement than you are willing to acknowledge. I have tried to carefully word things so as to NOT make Smith look bad. But I don't think that means excluding interesting and necessary history about this film.

P.S. You said you wanted sources ThatGuamGuy? Well, I've doubled sourced every instance you required. So please let this edit war go away now. LIke I said, I will not say "Smith failed to find a distributor" and you should be happy that I have not said that. It seems like you what you want me to concur is that (a) Smith has beat the media (b) the media is wrong a lot and (c) Smith is the ONLY verifiable source that matters. Sir, I will not do that. My first duty is to wikipedia. It is not my job to do positive PR for your idol Kevin Smith. Hopefully this edit war can finally stop. I do NOT plan to discuss this further as it has become exhausting. Thx.75.174.142.25 (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Please point out to me where I insulted you. I see no insult in anything I've said. On the other hand, you've repeatedly accused me of bias and bad-faith edits -- a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. You've repeatedly relied solely on original research to make your points -- a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. On the other hand, I am going to refrain from responding to your repeated insults, except to say that I come to this out of an interest in the story angle of "independent distribution". That's where I began following anything to do with Kevin Smith as far as comments on podcasts or twitter (though I've seen his movies over the years). But, to respond to your actual point, you cite two articles for the claim that 'Red State' failed to find a distributor. Neither of these sources confirms that claim as you've written it. [And I'm pretty sure that Drew McWeeney's blog entries on how much he hates Kevin Smith fail the Wikipedia test of verifiability.] Further, the Variety source you repeatedly cite -- your original research is that this quote proves that they didn't find a distributor, my original research is that that quote is obviously untrue because they had already booked Radio City Music Hall by the time that quote was given. Neither one of these is acceptable, because they're both original research. It's perfectly simple; you're using the words "After not finding a distributor for the movie". Even by your own elaborate explanation [and you'll notice, I accept in good faith that you're telling the truth; it doesn't matter, because it's original research, of course], the film had many offers from distributors. The wording that you keep claiming has a consensus (though none appears visible) is worded in a way which clearly suggests that the film had no interest, which is obviously untrue. The story you just told indicates that, at most, the filmmakers were unable to find a satisfactory theatrical distributor. And that, too, would be a fine claim to make -- if you could find a source for it. But the sources you are citing do not support the spin you are giving the words, so I have to once again remove them. I will definitely keep removing unverified statements, no matter how much you cry "edit war". Until you find actual sources to back your claims up. And you inexplicably keep reverting to your claim about the Weinsteins; the thing is, you can keep the sloppy wording that you have, that they "passed on it", or you can be more specific and say that they passed on producing it, which is true. You have no source claiming that they passed on distributing it. And, because the sentence is so close to the talks about distribution, the distinction seems important to make, for clarity's sake. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT - I actually found a source for the idea that Jon Gordon was obviously lying because they clearly already had Radio City Music Hall and other theaters booked -- Drew McWeeney says it in the link you posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You are using Kevin Smith as your major source here. And you are using childish logic to back your claims. Unless you are a mindreader then you can't prove if the auction was legit or a hoax. Smith could be making it up. No source prior to the auction proves definitely that the auction was a hoax. It sounds like spin. And the sources in the press simply say Kevin didn't find distribution for his movie. Nuff said. Enjoy your edit war.75.174.142.25 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Smith is currently the only source available that even approaches Wikipedia standards -- though I totally agree that anything attributed to him should be clearly indicated as such. [It is not comprable to your previous Nixon example because, in the case of Nixon, there are reputable people on both sides of the claim. You still have yet to source your claims.] You are right that I can't prove that the auction was legit or a hoax -- but the only source for the existence of the auction in the first place was Kevin Smith himself. All other sources repeated information he had provided. And, again, none of the sources cited have said that he "didn't find distribution". Any form of the phrase ("failed to", "didn't find", whatever the distinction you see there doesn't compute) implies that he was actively seeking distribution, something with no real source other than Kevin Smith himself and Jon Gordon in an article where he is (as your own source agreed) clearly lying. It is you who seems determined to mount an edit war, repeatedly inserting unsourced facts into an article in violation of wikipedian policy. I have been following the policy, specifically removing claims that are unsourced which can be damaging to the reputations of living persons or entities. And, just for the record, I was not the guy who called you mentally handicapped. All of the insults here have come from you, who has clearly shown he has no regard for listening to any other opinion. If you want to call in the editors, by all means. I'm not the one who's done anything wrong here. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy

Look.... what do you want?lol Seriously... LIsten, I don't know what the major malfunction is here with you. Up until the auction Smith said he was looking for a distributor. There is no evidence Gordon was lying as part of some elaborate gag or hoax. All this came out at the time of the auction. Smith simply changed his mind because he thought the marketing costs for this kind of movie was cost prohibitive for the movie he was trying to sell. I never said he failed to sell his film. I never said he couldn't find a distributor, etc. I'm just saying what third party sources are saying: that he didn't find a distributor. And I'm leaving it neutral that way. You are allowing celebrity spin doctoring to enter this article and even you admit that Smith isn't a good enough source by wikipedia standards. He's a biased source, his opinion has certainly been included in this article. There is no reason that the other information (i.e. that he didn't find a distributor) can't ALSO be included. Why are you not engaging this nuance that I keep imploring you too? Please explain. Sheeesh...75.174.142.25 (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Compromise

Hey, I'm all for a compromise. I think some of your changes are fine. I agree with removing redundancies. I tweaking some of your compromises so as to remove weasel words and such. Again, I'm being careful NOT to say "he failed to find distribution" or that he "couldn't find a distributor." Incidentally, I also verified on Smith's twitter that the reason he didn't find a distributor was because the least bid he could accept for the sake of his investors was 25 million since anything less couldn't cover the costs of advertising and prints. If you need I can provide a link to that twitter. Hope this helps.75.174.142.25 (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dammit, I had a much better response written out and then you had to jump the gun and get all reasonable on me -- right when I was trying to do that! Let's work it out in here -- I'm not entirely against including something about distributors, but I think that it should have more context than just "Smith did not find a distributor". I think that, with some qualifiers, it can be made to work -- without further explanation, though, I don't like it, because I feel like it carries some implications about the quality of the film. Whether fair or not, I think that people reading that with no further context would make some value judgement about the film based on that. Citing Twitter, and another thing up there, brings up the problem -- either Kevin Smith is a good source or he's not. You can't exactly pick and choose when to believe him based on how much the specific words support your position. Pretty much everything about 'Red State' other than the critical reviews has come from him either as a primary source or a secondary source -- the existence of the auction (or "auction-style") and the reasons for choosing self-distribution, all of it. There's a more elaborate quote from Smith somewhere along the same lines, but giving it a completely different context -- saying that, once he realized that he didn't want to take less than that, and that he didn't feel the movie's marketability justified that cost, he basically decided to self-release it.... I'm not saying this is a better or worse thing. Just that slight spins on words can really change their meaning -- if he was never seriously looking for a distributor, then he didn't quite "not find" one, you know what I mean? I was thinking, what if it's two separate sentences? One about the auction, and then the next one specifically addressing the distribution? Something like: "After announcing that distribution rights to the film would be auctioned off following the debut screening of the film at the Sundance Film Festival (out of competition), Smith instead caused a controversy by announcing plans to self-distribute the film "under the Smodcast Pictures Banner" on a traveling show in select cities before officially releasing the movie on "October 19th" in 2011. Smith has said that no distributor would be interested in the film for the amount that he felt he would need to sell it for." I don't think you're going to like that, but I think you'll come up with something good off of it. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy

I just want to keep things simple here, man. For months leading up to the Sundance screening, Smith has been talking up the notion of selling his film to a distributor. Then at the screening he said he would have to buy the film himself because he didn't find a distributor up to his standards, citing the unfairness of Hollywood distribution system, his morality in the matter, and a bunch of other things that really don't belong in an article that is supposed to be fact based. Because Kevin refuses to do press for his movie he doesn't have any sources that can adequately backup his claims. I think I've compromised plenty for you. The article originally said "Kevin failed to find a distributor" which, while true, does sound negative. This has been pared down sufficiently so that the simple fact remains that (a) the history of this film was Kevin Smith looking for a distributor (b) he didn't find one for whatever reason and (c) he has bought the film himself. Where you are hanging yourself here is your fear of what the reader will think. Bad move. Your job here is to present the facts and then let the reader make up his own mind. Your job is NOT to distort or subtly tweak the facts with weasel words in order to prevent the audience from getting a negative impression. Either they will or they won't. We shouldn't care what the reader thinks. It is important to make a factual article. If the facts have a negative connotation to them (I don't think they do) then that's Smith's fault. Incidentally, Smith's stunt was entirely unnecessary and baffling. All he did was build hype for a project that ultimately let down his audience and proved too controversial for buyers like Weinstein to sign on to because he refused to do test screenings or press for the film that might've tipped him off that the movie he is trying to peddle might not be good enough to sell to anyone. It reminds me of an episode of "Different Strokes" where Arnold promises to bring Mr.T to a talent show before he actually knows if he can get the guy to come and makes a big fool of himself. Don't count your chickens before they've hatched, eh? And that seems to be the lesson here for Smith. And that's besides the point and why it is best for us editors not to comment on all of this drama since it's unencyclopedic and forces people to take sides which I'm firmly uncomfortable with. I'm just trying to jot down the history of this film, that's all. It's not my problem that Kevin got himself into some big embarrassing mess. And I'm NOT going to go back in time and say Kevin planned all along to self-distribute this when there is NO source PRIOR OR BEFORE the auction that says such. It's not my job to do PR for the guy and it's not your job either. Please let go of this fight since I've given into you enough and the article now clearly satisfies wikipedia standards. I even removed the sources you did not like. Let's move on now please.75.174.142.25 (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should walk away before there's a consensus. Again, citing Kevin Smith as a reason that you don't believe Kevin Smith as a source seems disengenuous in this instance. All talk of selling the film to a distributor was done in terms of the Sundance auction. It was not discussed in terms of searching for distributors and not finding them. So all of the build-up was specifically about the auction. The auction itself did not happen. Again, at the moment when Kevin Smith was going to publicly seek a distributor, he opted instead to distribute it himself. Surely you see how there is a distinction between that and "not finding a distributor". These are, as far as I have seen, the only verifiable facts about the situation. I don't see how you can think it's a bad idea to explain the film not finding a distributor. It's a very reductive phrase that needs explanation or, at the very least, an explicit and verifiable source that says simply that Kevin Smith actively sought distribution and did not find it at all and that's why he chose to self-distribute it. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT - I want you to know I thought your re-word on the Weinstein sentence was quite good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 07:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your civility. I'm for this current article as it stands. Reductive is good since it's not our job to analyze the facts or to explain things here. The reader gets to do that. That's why this is an online encyclopedia, not an online thesis. And since Smith refused to do press for this movie BEFORE the auction then there is no way to prove his claims now and there will never be a way to prove it. We can't use his claims now to go back in time and change the history of this film. The press and third-party sources confirm he was looking for a distributor before the auction. If his goal was to trick everyone, well, then he succeeded.lol Maybe better than he intended. The truth, if you are curious, is that he is spinning this for obvious reasons. But I have no desire to place that in the article either. So a neutral reading satisfies the need for verifiability whilst not taking sides in accordance with wiki standards for NPOV veracity. Let's move on now please. Good day.75.174.142.25 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

But saying that he is lying now is original research; you're basing that on your own beliefs and assumptions and even observations. Saying that he was lying when he announced the auction is sourced, both to him and in Drew McWeeney's analysis of the event. 69.123.136.21 (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)ThatGuamGuy EDIT: In fact, when you google "Red State Auction Hoax", you get 195,000 hits. It seems as if there *is* a wide consensus in the media that the auction was a hoax. The positive things that think it was cool say it, the negative things that are criticizing him say it. You seem to be resistant to the idea that it was a hoax, but it certainly appears to be a more accurate statement than "The film found no distributor," which none of these "hoax" articles state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.136.21 (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Listen to the podcast, Smith clearly says he decided to self distribute the movie 4 days into filming. he also mentions how difficult it was to stay quite about what he was going to do at sundance. Bencey (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)\

Smodcasts are NOT a verifiable third party source.lol And neither is 'biased' Kevin Smith. See wikipedia rules for WP:VWP:VERIFYWP:SOURCE.75.174.142.25 (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

That $25 million dollar figure isn't what he was "looking for" as a bid (I'm on the hoax side, but that's beside my point). It's the "theoretical" figure that a movie would need to make in order to cover the studio's marketing costs. Socby19 (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And I think there is enough evidence to suggest that Smith was lying. But I don't think the hoax was truly a hoax. I think it was a backup plan, saying it was a hoax entirely. I do think Smith was using this phony auction to generate hype but he was counting on a good enough pre-bid before the auction and when he didn't get a good enough one then he fell back on this spin story. Had he gotten a good enough bid then I'm sure he would've used the theater of the faux auction to announce it. BTW There is a great article by Kim Masters that interviewed sources close to Smith that reveal that his employer Harvey Weinstein and him had a falling out after Z&MMAP. And since Weinstein was bankrolling his films all these years it's no wonder that, without him, he's unable to find a distributor. He wasn't looking for someone to directly pay him $25 mil. That's just what it costs to market/advertise and exhibit a film. And when Smith found that no one was willing to pay THAT MUCH for such a moody and controversial film like "Red State" he swallowed his pride and decided to self-distribute. The best pre-bids he got probably would've been VOD with a direct-to-DVD release and a few token theaters playing it. Smith would've never gone for this, too embarrassing.75.174.142.25 (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research. Bencey (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. Indierewired (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hoax or not?

I don't really want to jump into this argument between the two editors but it seems like the debate is about whether the live auction was truly a hoax or creative spin. After a cursory glance of the info, Kevin Smith seems to suggest/imply that the auction was never meant to be taken seriously. But a deeper reading of his smodcasts and his twitter suggests that he is very carefully choosing his words so as not to say one way or another. I seriously can't find a direct quote from him that "the auction was a hoax all along" or that the "auction was a joke." It looks like he was leaving it up to his audience to decide what is true or not. He's actually being very vague. On the other hand, I am finding plenty of sources that say that the auction was the real deal and Kevin Smith simply changed his mind mere moments after the film festival screening, deciding to buy the movie himself rather than sell it to someone else. For instance, a good article about all this says:

"soon after the film played to a good but not great reaction in its world premiere, Smith ditched the idea of a public sale and announced to the audience (after auctioning the film to himself for $20) that he would release the film on his own in October."

I think we should stick to the facts here rather than insert our own original research: Wikipedia:No original research. But I couldn't find any sources that said that Kevin Smith is engaging in a creative spin campaign either. So my opinion is that 'both' editors are wrong. The auction was NOT a hoax or a joke but there is not enough evidence to accuse Kevin Smith of being a spin doctor. My recommendation is to closely adhere to 3rd party sources reporting on this, suggested by another editor. According to the press, the auction was real but Kevin Smith changed his mind at the last minute after seeing the movie with a real audience for the first time. However I do agree with the other editor that using Kevin Smith as the main source of info here is a bad idea since it creates a problem with verifiability since he's been avoiding the press. Twitter and blogs are not very good sources and Kevin Smith is clearly a little biased here and not very reliable and Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiabilty, not truth and all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources. Does this work with you guys? Am I missing something here? Games Junn (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/archives/kevin_smiths_red_state_auction_is_a_hoax_filmmaker_will_self-distribute_hor/
• http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/620772/kevin-smith-addresses-bloggers-reaction-to-sundance.jhtml#id=1657474
• http://www.fastcompany.com/1720275/kevin-smith-red-state-auction

Bencey (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry man, but those sources don't hold up under scrutiny. Kevin Smith has been changing his tact and his story lately and he's dropping the bit about the auction being a hoax. Now he's saying that "he changed his mind" because he thinks the industry rips off people. Find a more RECENT source please since article change with time. Until then read on...

Questionable sources

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Games Junn (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Though I don't entirely agree with Games Junn's logic it doesn't matter though as the sources above don't work, even one of those sources listed by the other editor Bencey is even a legit source! It's just a video of Smith talking. How can we "quote" that if we want?lol The other sources are very outdated. Again, doesn't matter. Again, as it has been said on here again and again this is about verifiabilty, not truth and we all know what Smith is saying 'but' the CONSENSUS in the press and the public-at-large is that Smith is being untruthful:

Even Smith concedes in those sources above that the Press and the online community is against him:

"...it seems Kevin Smith finally has the Internet critical community united on the same side: against him."[[2]]

And, I love this one, when you are on the defensive... never a good sign... plus Smith admits he's fighting a public perception here...:

"Kevin Smith On 'Red State' Sundance Controversy: 'I Didn't Lie" [[3]]

Indierewired (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Good article so far

Digging this article so far. Like how it's turning out & very informative. :-) Glad 2 see disputes been working themselves out. Happy editing crew.Ghriscore (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Tour dates?

Should a section be added with the dates of the Red State U.S.A. Tour? --Starman (The U2 Fan) (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot synopses

While I'm often a sucker for spoilers, I think it may be a good idea to remove any plot synopses that may be edited into the article in the not-too-distant future, before the film's official release. I'm not sure if this is an actual Wikipedia policy, but I think it'd be a good idea simply out of politeness to Smith: Many horror films' plots hinge around twists, and to give the whole story away may lessen the impact of watching the film for those who merely come here for information on the production/distribution story. Of course, once it's officially released, there's nothing to stop a full plot section going up. Any differing opinions? Andyroo316 (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed

Removed :"Ethan Howard has called the film, "an over-zealous attack on the political right and Middle Americans motivated by left-wing hatred. Smith failed to transform his (no doubt genuine) sputtering range into an entertaining movie, let alone a social critique of any insight." No source and an unknown critic