Gilda

I'm putting this here and not in entertainment because, though it stems from a feud between Rob Shneider and a couple of movie critics, the point I'm getting at is a more general on realated to our attitudes about criticism.

It started with a front page story by Patrick Goldstein in the LA times about how indy movies dominated the Oscars last year:

Mr. Shneider took out a full page ad in the times to respond to Goldstein's criticism of his movie and acting abilities:

Rober Ebert, in his review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo summarized the previous criticism and reaction, ending in this:

Now while criuising internet sites looking for all the info on the whole affair, I happened upon many discussion threads. Many of them consisted of people congratulating Roger for "bitchslapping" Shneider alternating with people saying they disagreed with Roger's assessment, accompanied frequently by the complaint that Rober spent a substantial portion of his review taking personal shots at Schneider or alternately, taking personal shots at Roger for being fat, old, stupid, or any number of other criticisms that have nothing to do with the quality of his assessment of the movie. Sadly, some criticize him for taking personal shots, then do the same themselves.

I've read the review several times, and just did so again, very carefully, only to find that there isn't a single personal criticism of Shneider in the review. There is criticism of his behavior, and criticism of his movie, but Roger correctly doesn't take potshots at the man himself.

So I'm wondering where such hostility toward Roger's physical appearance or age comes from. Why is it necessary to take note of his size, age, recovery from cancer surgery, in regards to a movie review?

Is it just the culture of the internet where taking anonymous shots is easy, while countering someone's actual argument or reasoning is more difficult? Is it just that it's easier to say things here (the web) than in real life?

Looking back at the original Goldstein article, even he doesn't really take personal shots at Shneider, rather he criticizes his work by calling him a third-rade comedian. If you thought I was a lousy teacher, and called me a third rate teacher, you'd be wrong, but you'd also be criticising my work. If you criticized my physical appearance or age or ethnicity, that would be uncalled for.

Whenever I see someone resort to personal attacks of this sort, I usually just think that they're implicitly conceding the argument. Indeed, this is what I tell my students. Personal attacks reveal a lack of ability to support your side of the discussion.

It also points to something that I've always found confusing. If I criticise a movie/book/artwork you like, no matter how harshly I do so, and no matter how feircely you love it, it isn't a criticism of you. It just means that we interpreted the work of art differently. Why do people so often react to criticism of movies or tv shows as if they were personal attacks? Is it that they cannot tell the difference? Is it that people believe thier opinions to be objective fact? I know that middle schoolers think this way, and have a difficult time developing and understanding that opinions usually reflect the taste of the peson holding them and not the quality of the thing being judged, but why does this persist beyond adolescence?

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

connyosis

I've always found Rob Schneider pretty sad, even though I still kind of like him. He's like Adam Sandlers slightly retarded failed cousin. (And calling someone retarded when comparing them to Adam Sandler is pretty bad...)

__________________
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

raeanna74

I completely agree with this statement. Well put.

Reading that article - the whole time I was reading the retort and childish 'tantrum' of Mr. Shneider my opinion of the man was dropping lower and lower. He didn't even bother to read the comments made about his movie all that carefully. He said "your snide comments about me and my film". There were actually NO comments made about Mr. Shneider personally. NONE. His name was not mentioned. An inability to handle criticism of your work alone shows a great lack of maturity and seriously low self-esteem. I wonder how he even managed to get into the business he is in. From what I understand, critics ABOUND in the movie industry. I am actually quite surprised that someone could be that sensitive about their work.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

lurkette

Some people have a very thin skin when it comes to things they know to be true but don't want to believe themselves. Maybe Rob Schneider's movies make a difference to someone - maybe they brighten up someone's day so they don't kill themselves or something - but really, he's just an entertainer. In the final analysis, his movies are pretty mindless and probably contribute to a vapid culture. If he's so self-important that he can't accept that, then he's got bigger problems than having wasted a bunch of money on a full-page ad in the Times. Methinks he doth protest too much. The critic hit him where it hurt, and rather than look at himself and decide whether he enjoys being a third-rate comic, he spends his energy defending himself and attacking his critic. He's taking it personally - and in return, making his criticisms on a personal level - because he cannot make a distinction between himself and his professional ego. Sounds like the last refuge of the sadly deluded.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

Gilda

He was a regular on SNL at the same as Adam Sandler. Sandler is a close friend who co-produces his movies. Personally, my guesss is that Schneider's movies get made becaus Sandler is big box office, and the bigwigs want to keep him happy. It surely can't be talent.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Blackthorn

You have to admit ... this is pretty funny.

You see the same reaction among people whether it's about entertainment meaning movies, or sports (just look at the discussions of LSU Vs. the much lesser talented USC of two years ago ), and most certainly politics.

People feel passionately about certain things and at times when they have decidedly different points of view they will reduce their discussions to attacks of a personal nature. If you can't discredit the argument then discredit the person.

Mr. Schneider's maturity and apparenly his research abilities are somewhat in question in this case. I'm no fan of movie critics because I've found their reviews to be not very helpful to me in terms of identifying a movie that I'd be interested in seeing. Duece Bigalow - I didn't see it and I likely won't see Duece Duece. The critics didn't influence that decision as I just look at that sort of flick and think... meeeh...not so much. I do recall one movie that was pretty much universally panned for such poor acting, etc that I enjoyed many times: Top Gun. After seeing it serveral times I think the critics were right -- that is some atrocious acting but I was still entertained by it. The critics were pretty harsh on that one though and I remember reading the reviews way back then and thinking -- wow -- these guys are useless to me as movie reviewers because I liked this movie. Just different points of view.

If Rob Schneider expected critical accolades for Dropping the Duece he's a little misguided and again his retort to the critics review was more than a little lacking in maturity.

__________________
What are you willing to give up in order to get what you want?

martinguerre

i think it may also have to do with our idea of vocation and idenity.

if someone insulted your teaching, gilda, and you disagreed with their asessment, that would be a pretty serious issue i suspect. for many people, what they do is so central to their entire idenity, that to attack their work (in their mind) is to attack them personally.

we are a nation of workers...ask someone at a party what they do, and you will not hear about their hobbies or anything else...unless they're unemployed.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

canuckguy

i used to like Rob Schneider on snl, his movies have been so-so. I think people sometimes expect a oscar from people who are not trying to give you an oscar. Rob Schneider is trying to make you laugh, if you don't like him then don't watch.

did anyone think that maybe Rob Schneider did this because he wanted to hype his movie? there is so much more in the world to care about than this.

thingstodo

Rob's acting makes me laugh and I enjoy his movies, both as the leading character and as a number 2 to Adam. They actually make a cool pairing int he movies - to me.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

aberkok

I have to agree with brian1975, Schneider's probably laughing all the way to the bank. Even though I think he's wrong to attack Goldstein, maybe he isn't really that upset after all and just saw it as an oppurtunity to promote his movie. To me, Goldstein's and Ebert's criticism of Deuce Bigalow reveals more about them than it does about the movie.

As far as the necessity of having professional critics goes, I must invoke Tim Robbin's president of the U.S.A. from Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me when talking about blowing up the moon: "Would you miss it...would you miss it!?"

If all the critics just took off all of a sudden, the world wouldn't notice.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Charlatan

Sadly, it didn't used to be this way. There was a day when Pauline Kael, Jay Scott and a bevy of other great critics were out there.

I would say that Ebert is frequently in this class.

Today the vast majority of critics are just reviewers who offer, ironically, a rehash of plot and a thumbs up or down on a film. Of course, the same can be said for the film industry as a whole.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Sultana

"Third-rate comic" sounds like a personal attack to me.

I think that especially with performers, when their work is attacked, *they* are being attacked. When performing, one is offering a view of oneself (to anyone with a mouth or a pen to respond), and it makes them very vulnerable. Of course you have to understand that if you put yourself out there, you are opening yourself up to any kind of response, for good and for ill, with any number of motivations, and a thick skin is neccessary. Still doesn't make it easy to shrug off. Personally, I think this is one of the reasons many actors have emotional problems. They have to be able to feel/emote strongly enough to have it captured on film, but then they're supposed to have a rhino-hide when it comes to real life, and the camera is off.

I'm not advocating a touchy-feely, "don't hurt the person's feelings" type of critique, but I'd be interested in seeing how many critics actually have done the activity they are critiquing. Not many, I'd be willing to wager. And it's *very* easy to use harsh words to tear somebody down to:
Give your writing an "edge"
Make yourself look better
To be viewed as a trend-setter
To get attention/laughs

Not saying Rob S. responded in the best way, but I don't think what he did was incomprehensible.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

denim

It's also possible that Schneider (or his studio) paid Goldstein (or the L.A. Times) for the original exposure.

Marvelous Marv

I'm with Brian. I think it was for the publicity.

For the record, I didn't see a personal attack in Schneider's response. I did opine that the "third rate comic" description was a personal attack.

I would normally say that anyone who makes it to be a regular on SNL is in the higher echelons of comedy, but I'm still scratching my head over Adam Sandler.

Even Schneider as the copy room geek was better than anything Sandler ever did.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

meembo

Publicity stunt, little else. Egos are involved, of course, but Rob Schneider movies need all the talk they can get.

__________________
less I say, smarter I am

analog

That's the best comeback/insult ever. Though I hate to use the term- if I were to ever need to describe the slang term "owned" to a person who did not understand it's use or meaning, I would simply quote Roger Ebert's comeback, from above, and all would be crystal-clear.

I used to love Schneider on SNL. He's a bit of a goofy guy, makes goofy movies, and that's what he does. Doesn't mean they're any good- just goofy. There's an audience for it, and they must at least break even if they continue to give him movie deals. Hollywood executives talk only in terms of money, and they're not stupid. If there wasn't a good reason to spend money on this project, they wouldn't have. It's not like anyone is under the impression Schneider will get an Oscar for it. It's stupid, mindless entertainment- and as such, will always have a following that supports more of the same.

alansmithee

I think Schneider made his remarks solely for publicity's sake. He saw a reviewer causually mention his movie, and decided to ride that to more press. Honestly, the people going to see his movies probably aren't all that concerned about the Oscars anyways, but would find more humour in Schneider's comeback.

Even though I think that more and more personal attacks are becomming the norm for any kind of interaction, I don't think this is a good example since there was probably a direct gain to be made from the comments (in this case, publicity).

And as for film critics, I can't remember who said it, but I remember reading that film critics are often overly-critical simply because other forms of entertainment often require some form of effort/intellectualism (such as books) whereas any 17 year old idiot with $8 can go watch a movie. Although I personally think Ebert is different than this, he generally seems to review movies not in terms of some abstract artistic merit, but in relation to how the intended audience will recieve them.

FoolThemAll

Hell no. I can understand a complete dislike of Sandler's work, but his worst stuff was 10 times better than the crap Schneider regularly turns out. Even Opera Man.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Lasereth

I've been a huge, huge fan of Roger Ebert for years now. I trust his reviews...not because they're always right, but because he tells why he likes or dislikes a movie. Many critics tell about the movie's plot, then give a score. Ebert tells why he's giving it a star rating and what could have been better or worse. Roger Ebert has only failed me thrice since I've been reading his reviews, and by "failed," I mean I actually disagree with the rating. Those three movies were hit or miss with many people. The reason why I still consider Ebert the best critic (ok, the ONLY critic I trust) is because he explained <I>why</I> he disliked those movies which led to me understanding why someone else would like them.

One of Ebert's traits within his reviews is an extreme smart-ass attitude towards movies that are out to make money and laughs. Movies like Deuce Bigalow should never be made. I'm proud of Ebert calling out the shitty movies in our time. He is <I>the source</I> of movie reviews that never fails. He saves people time and money from seeing craptacular movies. When he's out of the movie reviewing game, I honestly don't know what I'll do.

Just a little precaution: if you believe movies are to be made for laughs or for "cool moments," then Ebert may not be the critic for you. If you think Half-Baked, Jay and Silent Bob, or Independence Day are good movies, then you'll probably disagree with all of Ebert's reviews. He reviews movies based on quality film-making, not movies that are designed for young teenagers that want to laugh or see poorly designed Bruckheimer action scenes.

Ebert frequently "owns" people to borrow analog's usage. His Vincent Gallow/Brown Bunny fiasco had me laughing for a long time. Read any of the reviews by Ebert on crappy movies and you'll see comments as entertaining as the Schneider review.

Someone mentioned that all of the movie critics in the world could disappear and no one would notice or care. That's not the opinion of everyone. Some people do not want to waste their time and money at the theater. Some do not want to go and see a disappointing movie. Some people want to spend their money knowing that they are going to see a quality piece of cinema. Those people find a critic they agree with and thoroughly read the review of the movie you're interested in. Those people also invest their money that would have been spent on Deuce Bigalow into more worthwhile objects and laugh at those who think critics are stuck up snobs who don't know what they're talking about. Some do, and they benefit everyone more than you think.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

alansmithee

I find it interesting that you also like Ebert, but for almost the entire opposite reason I do. I think he has given good reviews for many "bad movies", but he explained the review in the context of the movie's genre/target audience.

aberkok

This rang a bell so I checked out the above posts and I found out that the someone who said that was me! When I first made the statement I was very careful to qualify it by saying "professional" critics would not be missed. I stand by that. Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but these days when I want to see a movie, I'll check in with one of the advance reviews on Ain't it Cool News or even check a thread here on the TFP. I don't know how many of the submitters on AICN are pros, but aside from Harry Knowles, I don't think many of the reviewers make a living from it. They're just enthusiasts sharing their opinions. Same with those on the TFP. I trust average joes like that more than Ebert. Especially when he pans Rob Schneider movies while at the same time proclaiming that Episode III was "fun."

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

TrumanTT

But you see, here is the HUGE difference. Rob Shneider is a comedian and is looked upon to be funny. If you want a 'bad guy' in these situations its the critics who are trying to defend their 'talent' on badmouthing movie corporations who do a good job taking our money and pointing out every movie flaw.

Those who can't act, write, direct, produce, or operate a mic boom - CRITIQUE

__________________
"I hate quotations. Tell me about yourself." Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I feel sorry for the failed lives of everyone who can sum up their experiences in one small quote." MINE! (but thats what I think Ralphie was trying to get at ^up there^

Lasereth

Ain't It Cool News has possibly the worst movie reviews on the entire planet. They're littered with fanboy rubbish that is generated from them being able to see a movie before everyone else. I've seen quite a few reviews from them proclaiming a movie would be the best of the year, followed by the movie opening and being a complete disaster. They're one of the reviewers that give the rest of the industry a bad name. I don't trust average joes because they're simply not trained to critique a movie based on a standardized scale. Of course, this all goes back to the reason people watch movies to begin with. I don't want to see a crappy movie that makes me laugh, I want to see a good movie that makes me laugh. Some people don't care as long as you laugh. I do. I don't want to start a flame war here, I'm just saying that some people have different movie standards than others. And what's wrong with saying the Star Wars movies are fun? I sure had a great time watching them!

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Lasereth

I'd rather those who can't act, write, direct, produce, or operate a mic be a critic than make raw crap like the Bigalow movies.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

aberkok

LET THE FLAME WAR BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. I just don't see the consistency in Ebert enjoying the mindless fun of Star Wars and at the same time trashing the mindless toilet humour of Schneider.

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Lasereth

I don't think you can compare one of the greatest movie series of all time to a movie designed to make 12 year olds laugh and reap $$$. You answered your own question -- he enjoyed the Star Wars movies and didn't enjoy the Bigalow movies.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Gilda

I didn't mean that Schneider's reaction was a personal attack. It demonstrates a thin skin, ignorance, and probably poor judgement, and was factually wrong, but he doesn't actually take personal shots at Goldstein, instead attacking, badly, his job qualifications.

That wasn't what my title referred to.

I was interested in why there were so many comments in the discussion groups I saw about Roger's physical appearnce, mostly his weight, but also his age, the saggy skin that's resulted from his massive weight loss, his recovery from cancer, his sexuality (many posters seem to think he's gay, which is untrue) and so on.

I'm wondering while I'm reading such comments, first what any of this has to do with the quality of his criticism, and second, why people tend to react to criticism of a movie (or book, or tv show) they like as if it were a criticism of them.

I've seen students get into a fight over whether Napoleon Dynamite was a good movie, or which rap artist was better. Being a fan of Rob Shneider doesn't make you Rob Shneider. If a critic takes a swipe at a movie you like, he's not taking a swipe at you.

Gilda

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

bad jane

i agree with that 100%. but, since that isn't the discussion the op was intending...

as to why people felt the need to attack the critic personally, well, for one it is easy.

but keep in mind too, the primary responsibility of a critic is to offer his or her opinion. a person can agree or disagree as they like. but if you feel that the actor is the best ever and oozing with talent, hearing someone say his movie sucks is going to put many people on the defensive on some level. supported or not, our opinions are a large part of how we define ourselves. if you say my favorite movie sucks and is a waste of time, what does that say about me? and the jump from feeling defensive to becoming offensive is often quite small.

alansmithee

Many people see critique of things they enjoy as personal attacks, which leads to attacking back in kind. If a reviewer says a movie is stupid/childish/vulgar/etc. and someone who likes it reads that review, they will assume that the critic thinks they are also (insert negative adjective). Because if they weren't (negative adjective), why would they enjoy something that was? And even if the insult isn't implied that directly, at the very least the critic is saying you have bad taste for liking whatever they are saying is bad. And it seems that people are generally unable to separate things into like/dislike, and must immediately quantify which "like" is better than the other.

Reviewers generally don't help this either, they usually only contribute to separating which likes are better or worse. Sometimes I think this is even unintentional. For example, I was doing some surfing on FARK articles, and came to a site by a new york artist. It seemed interesting, so I decided to look around a bit. Apparently, after attending poetry slams, she came up with an "anti-slam" where artists were all given perfect scores for performance (at the regular slams she attended, there were judges picked from a crowd that rated performance. She attempted at several to get the lowest marks possible). She did this because she felt that art shouldn't be rated or critiqued. But in the very next sentence, she went on about how art should be genuine expression, and not clinically crafted, and said how many newer artists were producing sterile art. So in one sentence, she says art shouldn't be rated, than immediately goes on to rate other people's art (just on a creativity/genuiness scale as opposed to a strict quality scale). Crititicizing seems to be human nature, as does the need to set pecking orders for everything, including such things not quantifiable as taste.

aberkok

I wasn't asking a question. To elaborate:

According to those here who are pro-Ebert, he reviews based on the quality of the filmmaking. If that's the case, then he shouldn't be casting Episode III in a positive light as it is a poor example of filmmaking. If he is interested in the audience's entertainment, that's another story. This is where it gets too subjective because while I enjoyed both Episode III and Deuce Bigalow, I know some wouldn't.

By the way, what is Star Wars if not the most notorious example of a movie designed to "reap $$$." As well, the most recent installments had plenty of moments designed to make 12 year olds laugh. So I can certainly compare the two.

You're also wrong about Deuce Bigalow being for 12 year olds. I wouldn't have appreciated the full range of jokes until I was at least 18 or 19. That must be why I enjoyed it so much.... at 24!

__________________
!check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com

Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

Willravel

They're all acting like children. Deuce Bigalow is exactly what it intends to be: a silly, fart joke type movie. It has several moments that are quite funny. Deuce Bigalow was never intended to be a film of great substance or an independant movie. Goldstein calls Schneider a third rate comic. That's uncalled for. The article was supposed to be about how indipendant films did well at Oscars. That's great, and it has nothing to do with Rob Schneider. Then Schneider shoots back with an equally childish letter trying to discredit Goldstein, only to make a bigger fool of himself. THEN Ebert, who has nothing to do with the disagreement, decides to put in his two cents. Goldstein should have stuck with a simple story, Schneider should have enjoyed the millions he has, and Ebert should consider sticking to critisizing movies, not actors.

Rob Schneider is actually an excelent actor and comedian. His career choices may leave something to be desired, but that doesn't take away from hsi true skill. American Crude actually looks to be decent.

FoolThemAll

I've yet to see anything that supports this. What do you consider his best movie?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Xazy

The sad thing is I know others who feel that way. I just do not find him funny.. Heck I will go one step further almost all of the new SNL actors who (including the guy from anchorman, ferrell). Sorry I just find that the new batch of comedic movies (for the most part, this is not a 100% rule) will not stand the test of time and become true classic comedies.

<<edit>> In diverging from the main topic, I forgot the main point of the thread. Shneider whether he is jealous or not, is definitely overshadowed by his ex-colleagues from Saturday Night Live. And I think from there that is where his true venom comes from.

Lasereth

How is Episode III a poor example of film making? It is easily the best of the prequels and possibly better than the originals. It has great acting, great effects, an incredible plot, and good closure. The dialogue is faulty in only a few scenes. Episode II however...now that is a poor example of film making. I completely agree with you about the first two installments of the Star Wars prequels...Episode 1 had many, many kiddy moments in it and Episode 2 was downright horrid. Episode III is one of the best sci-fi movies ever, however (excuse the completely intentional rhyming).

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Willravel

I had the privelage of meeting him in person a few times. That's how you can tell someone is really funny, as opposed to comedians who rely heavily on writers. His movies are mediocre, but many great comedians have to do crappy movies (see Steve Martin in 'Bringing Down the House', or Robin Williams in 'Robots').

FoolThemAll

Fair enough. That doesn't quite push me to spend any money on Schneider-related TV and movies, though.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Willravel

Well it's obvious his movies have been less than hilareous. Even on SNL, he never stuck out. He has a ton of potential, but simply makes poor decisions in what he gets involved in. Deuce Bigalow was once such poor decision. I have no idea why he'd do another. He's passed up some excelent parts (better than 'Surf Ninjas 2: Electric Boogaloo). It's a shame his true humor oesn't get translated to the screen.

MichaelFarker

I really enjoyed this post. I don't read the paper or watch tv enough to have encountered this exchange first-hand but Gilda's comments were thought provoking. And Roger Ebert's comments made me laugh out loud.
Maybe people consider insulting someone's internet research skills more horribly rude than insulting his appearance and sexuality? I think I would.

Maybe people read a lot of themselves into the entertainment they love. They see their perspective or dreams reflected in a movie. Or a joke makes them laugh out loud and that's the best thing that happens to them all week. The same could be said of a song that makes you smile. Or maybe criticism from someone outside their group of something associated with their group identity is raising people's hackles. "Us against them" seems more common among young people.

micah67

I think the real winner here is Schneider's PR company. They were able to get Rob Schneider's name back into the mainstream by creating this fracas.

- Just my opinion.

__________________
~micah

Poppinjay

Think there are no good critics? Elvis Mitchell, baby. Bob Mondello.

If Schneider's rant had been funny, it would have been somewhat appropriate. In fact, he may have meant it to be funny and is just so misguided about funny that it came off lame. Mostly, it looks like an egotistical rant about somebody who doesn't have a whole lot to be egotistical about. His finest moment was makin' copies. He was one of those SNL cast members that appeared on the show starting you don't know when, and then disappeared and you don't notice.

Honestly, were I a Rob Schneider fan, I would look at this episode and wonder when this goofy dude who makes movies to get stoned to suddenly turned into a tight ass bitch.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet