The fact that the director has a 10 year gap between his films doesn't give me a lot of hope for this.
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
The fact that the director has a 10 year gap between his films doesn't give me a lot of hope for this.
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
No doubt, he sounds like a monkey who was given a handgun. He obviously had no idea how to handle himself in the industry. I can't fault him for that.
I do wonder what he's done to further himself as a director in the past 10 years. Terrence Malick took a 20 year break between movies to move to France. Then again he went to Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar and taught at MIT. Not to mention he created two incredible epics before calling it off.
RocketSauce on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
The fact that the director has a 10 year gap between his films doesn't give me a lot of hope for this.
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
No doubt, he sounds like a monkey who was given a handgun. He obviously had no idea how to handle himself in the industry. I can't fault him for that.
Heh, I can, I just won't fault his movies for it.
But I mean if I had to choose between hanging out with Duffy for a day and getting kicked in the junk for a day, I'd probably choose the junk kicking.
The fact that the director has a 10 year gap between his films doesn't give me a lot of hope for this.
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
Not necessarily. Shane Carruth seems like a decent guy and after his success with Primer it's taken him 5 years to line up his next film. Not to mention rapists like Roman Polanski who don't seem to have any problem making their movies.
I think the 800 pound gorilla is that he wants more control of his IP than the studios are willing to give.
Sliver on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
The fact that the director has a 10 year gap between his films doesn't give me a lot of hope for this.
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
Not necessarily. Shane Carruth seems like a decent guy and after his success with Primer it's taken him 5 years to line up his next film. Not to mention rapists like Roman Polanski who don't seem to have any problem making their movies.
You don't actually know who Roman Polanski is, do you?
Anyway, the point you're trying to raise is completely irrelevant. Criminal background has nothing to do with it. Duffy was a nobody who through his own actions blew the big chances that dropped in his lap. Polanski has a long career of being a respected director, that's why he kept getting work. Simply having done bad things does not get you black listed, because talent can make up for a lot. Duffy didn't have enough of that, and then he had no connections after he'd alienated the people who got the first movie made.
Gabriel_Pitt on
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
Not to mention that the Primer guy didn't really receive a lot of money for his success, or any real connections in Hollywood, so taking five years to line up another movie is to be expected
If this movie has another retarded, hamfisted credits sequence I will rue the time I spent watching this film just like I did the first movie. Aside from Willem Dafoe, who was awesome.
I've lifted this wholesale from the SA forums. I'd heard about Billy Connolly defending Troy Duffy before, but this is rather odd. These guys seems to think that Overnight is complete horseshit.
I have a little beef with [Overnight]. I’m not here to protect Troy though I was happy to make a movie with him. ... Also the directors were on the set and they must have interviewed me for seven hours during that shoot. I was conscientious telling them what I thought of the film and Troy. Then in their film my involvement is reduced to them asking me the question “What do you think of Troy Duffy?” Then they cut to me laughing. It’s bullshit. These guys may have made a beautiful documentary but as far as the morality of it, it’s a little stinky.
...
I know Troy and I’m sure he’s capable of bad behavior. But to leave out the good behavior causes an unbalanced picture. This was their point of view and they had a beef.
That documentary is just such crap. Those guys were friends of his and if you notice I’m the only person they didn’t interview because I wouldn’t sit down with them. I didn’t trust them. ... You can take home footage of Santa Claus and if you edit it the right way you can make him look like the devil.
Well I am so glad Willem said [what he did about Overnight] and I knew he would because he’s a nice man. That is such a hatchet job.
...
I’m one of the guys that are supposed to have been bullied by Troy. He never bullied me for a second. Troy is not a namby pamby, limp-wristed film guy. He’s a rock and roll guy. He’s an Irish American Boston guy and he has a rock band. He’s a very good writer and he’s a very bright man and he doesn’t fuck around. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly and I’m very comfortable with that. I never saw him bullying anyone. Maybe I saw him raising his voice but I don’t mind raised voices.
...
Those guys were supposed to be doing the “making of” and that’s why they got all the interviews. Then when they thought it wasn’t going to become a movie they did a wee hatchet job to make some money. Troy’s life is unfortunate enough with all the legal bullshit. He never made a penny from that fantastic movie that keeps going on and on and on. Every new wave that goes to college gets into it again. It’s forever.
Raybies666 on
Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
Just goes to show you can't always trust documentaries...Which is kinda sad and pathetic when you think about it.
The posts by the actors contradicting the documentary are interesting, but the documentary didn't come out until well after Duffy had his crash and burn. There's got to be some truth to the documentary.
I'll take from that that he wasn't an asshole on set. that doesn't change the behind the scenes stuff and whatever he did to piss people off.
it does help though. they didn't really ever show much of what happened on set, but I'm glad to have that out there.
It actually explains something that never made sense to me. If he was such a dickbag on the set why would the people from the first one, who aren't exactly nonames in desperate need of work, be willing to work on a second one with him.
HappylilElf on
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited September 2009
I mean, really what they show of the set is dafoe and connolly seeming to hint that duffy maybe talks too much about people he has problems with, and a conversation later with connolly where connolly tells him to remember the early times. but we never see them really take issue with the guy.
and we see them shooting one scene with a lot of yelling where they're all very pleased after.
so I don't know if that really makes it a hatchet job. unless they know something about the rest of the footage that we don't.
still, as I said already I'm happy to hear that at least the movie itself was a good time for him.
I'll take from that that he wasn't an asshole on set. that doesn't change the behind the scenes stuff and whatever he did to piss people off.
it does help though. they didn't really ever show much of what happened on set, but I'm glad to have that out there.
It actually explains something that never made sense to me. If he was such a dickbag on the set why would the people from the first one, who aren't exactly nonames in desperate need of work, be willing to work on a second one with him.
Every so often over the years i'd remember there was supposed to be a sequel and I'd check out the webpage. No new info, but Duffy is seen in new photos with Reedus and Flannery every so often, Flannery moreso. It seems like they are friendly acquantinces (which is how I spell it when hungover) and hang out on the odd occaision.
It's entirely possible the douche behaviour in overnight is a man cracking from pressure. Think about it, Duffy had a lot thrown at him, a lot of potential success, and he'd better not fuck up, and he'd better look like he can handle it, then pressure and frustration all spills out on camera. It's also possible that the actors know this, but see a good guy in general and spot the difference, letting them like the guy.
At the same time, Billy Connolly flat out says that the issues reported with him and Duffy are bullshit. Willem Defoe flat out says that he was edited to seem like he laughs derisively at Duffy, and that it's bullshit. Norman Reedus says that the documentary makers had an agenda, didn't trust them and wouldn't talk on camera for them, and that it's bullshit.
There's far more going on than "Duffy is a monumental ass". That makes me interested in seeing more than a few snippets of Overnight. I had no previous interest in seeing 90 minutes of dickhead behaviour from the director of what I though was just a fun little movie, as even at the level i'm at (unsigned band playing shithole venues and rigged Battle of the Bands) I'm seen enough complete fuckheads that it's a given the entertainment industry is full of them.
And now I just remembered that Billy Connolly recorded a commentary, I have it, and have not listened to it. Completely unrelated, I just have to check it out. Between that and Overnight, that may well be my lazy sunday.
Raybies666 on
Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
There's too much painful footage in Overnight that can't just be attributed to editing. A particularly excruciating sequence with an almost crying brother comes to mind.
There's too much painful footage in Overnight that can't just be attributed to editing. A particularly excruciating sequence with an almost crying brother comes to mind.
Is there any context given? Editing doesn't necessarily just mean putting words in Willem Defoe's mouth.
Ther reason I ask is this:
I moved out of home 11 years ago as we lived in an isolated area and I had no social life. No family trouble or anything like that.
Last week, my parents told me I should stop renting and get a place of my own, and pay my own mortgage instead of someone elses. I explained that I'm up to my neck in debt til March and can't put money together for a deposit, basically I'm fucking broke. Then it went in circles, as it had for the last decade.
These conversations turn into fights, as they're frustrated that I don't listen to their advice, and I'm frustrated that they don't listen when I say i've thought about certain things, but need to sort a lot out before I can entertain any of that stuff. These arguments arise over lots of things, and it's years of frustration that lead to the fights.
People who know me say that I'm way too nice in general and a good guy, but if you were to walk in on a fight, I'd look like a fucking tool. My family love me, want me to do well in whatever i do as opposed to just pushing me for success, and there's me getting all pissed off. It's bad behaviour on my part, and the reasons involved do not excuse it, it just becomes understandable as someone cracking under pressure. Things like this are always worse with the people closest to you, as they see you at your most vulnerable and you are more open with them.
So my money troubles are small potatoes compared to having millions of dollars involved in my work.
I suppose what I'm asking is whether the documentary shows Duffy getting cocky with success and then cracking up and acting out when it starts to come undone, or does it just drop you in scenes and say "this is just what the guy is like".
The first is understandable behaviour, and the second is not. The second is refuted by people working on the movies who hung around for a sequel, long before a sequel could have even existed.
I'm not saying understandable = acceptable or anything, and I'm not arguing for or against the guy, just asking.
Raybies666 on
Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Posts
That's really a tribute to what a dickbag Duffy is. He had a fairly successful sleeper DVD hit which would've landed most writer/directors a halfway decent followup indie gig
but he pissed off everyone off so bad he had to claw his way back in a decade later.
No doubt, he sounds like a monkey who was given a handgun. He obviously had no idea how to handle himself in the industry. I can't fault him for that.
I do wonder what he's done to further himself as a director in the past 10 years. Terrence Malick took a 20 year break between movies to move to France. Then again he went to Harvard, was a Rhodes Scholar and taught at MIT. Not to mention he created two incredible epics before calling it off.
But I mean if I had to choose between hanging out with Duffy for a day and getting kicked in the junk for a day, I'd probably choose the junk kicking.
Not necessarily. Shane Carruth seems like a decent guy and after his success with Primer it's taken him 5 years to line up his next film. Not to mention rapists like Roman Polanski who don't seem to have any problem making their movies.
I think the 800 pound gorilla is that he wants more control of his IP than the studios are willing to give.
Anyway, the point you're trying to raise is completely irrelevant. Criminal background has nothing to do with it. Duffy was a nobody who through his own actions blew the big chances that dropped in his lap. Polanski has a long career of being a respected director, that's why he kept getting work. Simply having done bad things does not get you black listed, because talent can make up for a lot. Duffy didn't have enough of that, and then he had no connections after he'd alienated the people who got the first movie made.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Opening can of worms......NOW!
Willem Defoe
http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Willem+Dafoe+-+The+Life+Aquatic+With+Steve+Zissou/
I have a little beef with [Overnight]. I’m not here to protect Troy though I was happy to make a movie with him. ... Also the directors were on the set and they must have interviewed me for seven hours during that shoot. I was conscientious telling them what I thought of the film and Troy. Then in their film my involvement is reduced to them asking me the question “What do you think of Troy Duffy?” Then they cut to me laughing. It’s bullshit. These guys may have made a beautiful documentary but as far as the morality of it, it’s a little stinky.
...
I know Troy and I’m sure he’s capable of bad behavior. But to leave out the good behavior causes an unbalanced picture. This was their point of view and they had a beef.
Norman Reedus
http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Norman+Reedus/
That documentary is just such crap. Those guys were friends of his and if you notice I’m the only person they didn’t interview because I wouldn’t sit down with them. I didn’t trust them. ... You can take home footage of Santa Claus and if you edit it the right way you can make him look like the devil.
Billy Connolly:
http://suicidegirls.com/interviews/Billy+Connolly/
Well I am so glad Willem said [what he did about Overnight] and I knew he would because he’s a nice man. That is such a hatchet job.
...
I’m one of the guys that are supposed to have been bullied by Troy. He never bullied me for a second. Troy is not a namby pamby, limp-wristed film guy. He’s a rock and roll guy. He’s an Irish American Boston guy and he has a rock band. He’s a very good writer and he’s a very bright man and he doesn’t fuck around. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly and I’m very comfortable with that. I never saw him bullying anyone. Maybe I saw him raising his voice but I don’t mind raised voices.
...
Those guys were supposed to be doing the “making of” and that’s why they got all the interviews. Then when they thought it wasn’t going to become a movie they did a wee hatchet job to make some money. Troy’s life is unfortunate enough with all the legal bullshit. He never made a penny from that fantastic movie that keeps going on and on and on. Every new wave that goes to college gets into it again. It’s forever.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
fix'd
Also my immediate thought is that I loved the first movie but really don't think it would benefit from a sequal.
I can see why Troy would make one though hearing about how he got screwed on the first one.
The posts by the actors contradicting the documentary are interesting, but the documentary didn't come out until well after Duffy had his crash and burn. There's got to be some truth to the documentary.
so :^:
it does help though. they didn't really ever show much of what happened on set, but I'm glad to have that out there.
A Billy Connolly defense really changes things, doesn't it?
Also, your sig is great.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
It actually explains something that never made sense to me. If he was such a dickbag on the set why would the people from the first one, who aren't exactly nonames in desperate need of work, be willing to work on a second one with him.
and we see them shooting one scene with a lot of yelling where they're all very pleased after.
so I don't know if that really makes it a hatchet job. unless they know something about the rest of the footage that we don't.
still, as I said already I'm happy to hear that at least the movie itself was a good time for him.
Every so often over the years i'd remember there was supposed to be a sequel and I'd check out the webpage. No new info, but Duffy is seen in new photos with Reedus and Flannery every so often, Flannery moreso. It seems like they are friendly acquantinces (which is how I spell it when hungover) and hang out on the odd occaision.
It's entirely possible the douche behaviour in overnight is a man cracking from pressure. Think about it, Duffy had a lot thrown at him, a lot of potential success, and he'd better not fuck up, and he'd better look like he can handle it, then pressure and frustration all spills out on camera. It's also possible that the actors know this, but see a good guy in general and spot the difference, letting them like the guy.
At the same time, Billy Connolly flat out says that the issues reported with him and Duffy are bullshit. Willem Defoe flat out says that he was edited to seem like he laughs derisively at Duffy, and that it's bullshit. Norman Reedus says that the documentary makers had an agenda, didn't trust them and wouldn't talk on camera for them, and that it's bullshit.
There's far more going on than "Duffy is a monumental ass". That makes me interested in seeing more than a few snippets of Overnight. I had no previous interest in seeing 90 minutes of dickhead behaviour from the director of what I though was just a fun little movie, as even at the level i'm at (unsigned band playing shithole venues and rigged Battle of the Bands) I'm seen enough complete fuckheads that it's a given the entertainment industry is full of them.
And now I just remembered that Billy Connolly recorded a commentary, I have it, and have not listened to it. Completely unrelated, I just have to check it out. Between that and Overnight, that may well be my lazy sunday.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Is there any context given? Editing doesn't necessarily just mean putting words in Willem Defoe's mouth.
Ther reason I ask is this:
I moved out of home 11 years ago as we lived in an isolated area and I had no social life. No family trouble or anything like that.
Last week, my parents told me I should stop renting and get a place of my own, and pay my own mortgage instead of someone elses. I explained that I'm up to my neck in debt til March and can't put money together for a deposit, basically I'm fucking broke. Then it went in circles, as it had for the last decade.
These conversations turn into fights, as they're frustrated that I don't listen to their advice, and I'm frustrated that they don't listen when I say i've thought about certain things, but need to sort a lot out before I can entertain any of that stuff. These arguments arise over lots of things, and it's years of frustration that lead to the fights.
People who know me say that I'm way too nice in general and a good guy, but if you were to walk in on a fight, I'd look like a fucking tool. My family love me, want me to do well in whatever i do as opposed to just pushing me for success, and there's me getting all pissed off. It's bad behaviour on my part, and the reasons involved do not excuse it, it just becomes understandable as someone cracking under pressure. Things like this are always worse with the people closest to you, as they see you at your most vulnerable and you are more open with them.
So my money troubles are small potatoes compared to having millions of dollars involved in my work.
I suppose what I'm asking is whether the documentary shows Duffy getting cocky with success and then cracking up and acting out when it starts to come undone, or does it just drop you in scenes and say "this is just what the guy is like".
The first is understandable behaviour, and the second is not. The second is refuted by people working on the movies who hung around for a sequel, long before a sequel could have even existed.
I'm not saying understandable = acceptable or anything, and I'm not arguing for or against the guy, just asking.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Not viable for a while. I'll get to it.
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.