Jump to content

Trudell

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Trudell

  • Rank
    RAW's Electric Eye
  • Birthday 11/14/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Bexhill, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

1,252 profile views
  1. Really cannot wait to see this. My copy is on the way! Supergroovy interview with Steve Romano, thanks for posting that Tim! Trudell
  2. Tim has been really cool about cutting gpa kevin some slack, over and above what that guy deserves. To join this community means you support it. This forum is not open to individuals who's only purpose is to come here to insult its founders. He did not have to post a link for that video here in order to get his point across. His last communications on this thread were more than enough for me. So with a smile on my face and a green light agreement from the boys, I'm happy to report that gpa kevin is no longer welcome here. Thank you Mike V and justaguy for bringing this to our attention. Trudell
  3. If the topic is not worth discussion Thomas you won't hurt anyone's feelings by spending your time elsewhere in the forum. You have badgered this topic black and blue for pity's sake. Why stick around here just to constantly slam the movie and harp on other people's opinions? When I archive this thread I will be removing a good deal of the non productive fatty tissue . Trudell
  4. Hi Thomas! I mean Boogie Nights was a technically a lead but it was also a big ensemble movie, and his next two were a large step down. Read my original post, where I acknowledged Boogie Nights. Boogie Nights was a great film but Marky Mark was not alone, and he had the luxury of Paul Anderson. His acting was earnest and he was perfect for the role. Luck of the draw. It says nothing whatsoever. Marky Mark was put on the fast track to his career because his brother saved his life by giving him one. Some girls just love a white rapping bad boy with a sculpted bod. David Geffen> Funky Bunch> Calvin Klein Ads> more fighting> fall from grace> 1993> TV movie> moniker drop> 1994> Then his film career begins. Ray Stevenson didn't even begin acting until he was 27. He worked his way up from acting school to theater to TV and finally to films. No fast track. His acting career began in obscurity whereas Wahlberg's began after everyone knew his face and his name. Stevenson had it double difficult. He started in the UK. He has risen from obscurity to headlining a high profile american action movie. I want to say, what does that say? But that would be smug and I don't mean to be. If it was any other movie than P2 I'd almost bet that you would be behind him. You have to respect how far he's come and how hard he's worked. I'm just learning all of this since I don't know much about him except a few episodes of Rome. That impresses me though. Maybe.. but it really proves nothing. Lots of great stars began their careers with stinkers. Humphrey Bogart did almost 30 films, a lot of them terrible, before he became a star at 42 in The Maltese Falcon. Charles Bronson toiled in TV and supporting roles for 17 years before Sergio Leone. Willis has Blind Date and Sunset. There are hundreds of examples. I see the point you're trying to make Thomas, starting off with a hit movie can open a lot of doors but I don't think it's ever been a requirement to having a successful career. Trudell
  5. Updated: 10-19-2008 You can read quite clearly in the rules of conduct that we will not allow multiple member ID's for individuals. Recently I've begun pruning our members searching for people who do not think the rules apply to them. If I haven't made it to you yet and you would like to come forward we'll take that into consideration. See below for the updated list of member names and their status. We take this very seriously and we thank you for your attention and cooperation. As always, if you notice people abusing the forum boards in any way please report it to the forum administrators. James/Praetorian: Abuse of multiple memberships for an individual, and general abuse. Status: Banned. Sveinx, aka Mantooth/Matt45: General inflammatory abuse, abuse of multiple memberships for an individual after ban. Status: Banned, returned under false member ID, Banned again. Trudell
  6. That sounds like some very good advice. It also sounds like Marty Feldman telling Bette Davis she has big eyes. Trudell
  7. Not true at all Thomas. In my case I'm addressing a statement you made with a counter, which speaks for itself. Read what you said. "Mark Wahlberg didn't begin his career as a leading man with a garbage movie like Warzone." That is the comment I'm being specific to. Evidence would suggest that your statement is built on a foundation of sand. Of course that's all dependent on how you rate the films I mentioned. You could defend those films to help prove your point but instead you're changing the subject. I can't answer to what Mike's intentions were. Trudell
  8. Superexcellent! Thanks for checking in with that Thomas. Trudell
  9. Now you're just being stubborn Thomas. Yes, he did have Boogie Nights, with a great ensemble and a great director. But I wouldn't be chanting praises too loud for The Big Hit, or The Corrupter. Followed by that string of hits, Planet Of the Apes, Rock Star, and The Truth About Charlie? Rome was pretty great and Ray was pretty great in it. PWZ gave him an opportunity as a leading man in a fairly high profile action movie. He fell in love with the character by all accounts. How do you begrudge him for that? That's a rhetorical question. Trudell
  10. First let me say that Thomas definitely marches to the beat of a different drum. He's not the kind of person who internalizes much. Regardless. It looks very evident that you've been offended by him from the start. You saw Thomas' comment regarding Warzone as a personal affront against Ray Stevenson? I think it's been talked about at length that Thomas wasn't even aware of who Ray Stevenson was when he was cast so that sounds like you taking something a little too personally. That kind of assumed collateral damage is mostly people reading what they want into the statement. It hangs there to be dissected and translated into anything that suits the needs of the person who has taken offense. You admire Ray, that's wonderful, I hear he's a really great guy. If memory serves, Tom had just recently had to turn his back on something he really believed in because the studio wasn't interested in trying to do something more with the material than create more of the same thing. That's pretty frustrating. I can hardly blame him for feeling burnt at having no support in reaching for something more. I guess I understand your thoughts to a degree, but I also believe you may possibly be wrapped up in things a little too tightly. You infer that you want to like Thomas but it looks like you take every opportunity there is to hang him from the fencepost. So that doesn't really come off as an earnest statement. Further, you make a judgmental show of being offended at Thomas' behavior in reference to other professionals involved when he flat out explained to you that his comments were directed at studio decisions. I think you are doing a bit of creative translating where his comments are concerned. Forgive me for saying so but I think you have a chip on your shoulder every bit as much as Thomas, the difference being Thomas (as you agree) certainly did have an issue. A very real one. How exactly have you been harmed by all of this? Because for a brief moment it shined a negative light on a project, and a character you had no prior love for until Ray became involved? You yourself mention that Jane's comments mean less and less where the success of this film is concerned. Does that also include his acknowledgment of Ray earlier in these pages? The "Whiner" tag is something people like you are propagating when you get your feelings hurt because Thomas isn't going around singing hymns about how great this project is. The minute he speaks up and, God forbid, shares his disappointment with his fans you run quick to the nearest post-all to talk about what a baby he's being. Who is really the whiner? You guys have no real stake at that level, never did. It's pure unadulterated fan melodrama at work, which adds up since you mention you are here for the human drama of it. A year long human drama. Good grief. I guess you can't really have a human drama without a hero and a villain. I wonder if you hadn't picked yours a long time ago. I apologize for the tint of frustration in my response. You see, to me, you are hurting someone I care about. The difference is I know Thomas and he's a friend. I'm not attempting to suggest that your feelings are less meaningful regarding Ray, but there is a difference. I appreciate your thoughts and this discussion but I detect an agenda that you appear reticent to acknowledge. Trudell PS. Message to our members. Your comments germane to this discussion are appreciated but please make sure those comments remain constructive. No glib jabs please.
  11. I'll get back to this in a little while but just wanted to say, Why would you think your post won't last? Did anyone delete the comments you made previously when you voiced your opinion on this subject? Back soon. Trudell
  12. Well you did voice your dissatisfaction with Thomas earlier in this thread. You were bothered by something he said and you voiced your opinion. That worked out pretty well. When I read your words I felt more than a little bit betrayed that you went there to discuss it. It has the appearance of creating a mob mentality against someone I care about. Trudell
  13. My cat just deleted my post, Argh! Here it is again. Nomad Just curious. Is your purpose here as a member of the Raw forums only to act as a mole for the things Thomas says? I was just alerted to a post you made on imdb's message boards. It appears to me your actions would be just as reprehensible as what you presume of Thomas'. We're not blind here, and I'm no fan of a wolf in sheep's clothing. That's fine, take everything Thomas says personally. Fashion your own spin. Enjoy swimming in the drama you perpetuate. To put on a face here and then report back on safe ground to the "real fans" of this movie is kinda low darlin. And a little needy. I do have to give you credit for not sharing those feelings with us directly. But maybe that would have been a better idea. Trudell
  14. Let me understand this Tiara, are you saying goodbye to the boards because Fred has been temporarily suspended? Trudell
  15. Just wanted to add, we like Fred, we did not want to have to suspend him. But we made it very clear in a recent warning involving the Warzone thread in particular that personal attacks would not be tolerated. For the most part everyone here has conducted themselves accordingly. But there have been a couple of folks in particular who repeatedly have made this Forum their battleground. See the Behavior Issues thread for more info on that. In this particular instance Fred crossed the line. The other member in question did not. I have the feeling that Fred knew exactly what he was doing. Luckily, Tim was on it right away and the posts have been deleted. That's the long and the short of it. All we ask is that when you come here to use the forum you respect us enough to comply with our few rules concerning behavior. Tim informs me that we're temporarily suspending Fred, not banning him. It's Fred's choice whether or not he wants to come back. If he chooses to do so, hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Trudell
×
×
  • Create New...