comment #1

YourBlueRoom says ...

NIce try, Jeff. I really don't know how anyone can do junket after junket or whatever and not want to vomit having to get to thenext one. I'd do anyting t obreak up the boredom, especially if there is a pack of Star Joneses there.

comment #2

Kris says ...

I have an honest question, Jeff. I'm all for the lack of hard-hitting questions being addressed, that most of the times, when given ample opportunity, entertainment journalists flub the shot and shift into a PR mode for the star or film being covered, etc.

However, with this particular example, what was there to be gained, regardless of the response, by digging into the matter? Maybe the sheer fact that should be addressed and, in essence, kills any dissection of the thing, is that shit DOES happen, and that's basically it.

Looking to see dirt slung or some kind of finger-pointing amongst the priciples actually ends up ringing an Us Weekly vibe as much as "Why didn't you use the theme song?" does.

Personally - I'll say it once more - personally - I don't think there's any news in this matter at all. Nothing worth "breaking" certainly, and most assuredly, nothing of substance that is, at the end of the day, enlightening on any level.

comment #3

fred says ...

you're right on the money Kris. Plus, there's no way that any big revelations would come out of questioning them in that kind of situation - of course they are going to circle the wagons and deny anything substantial happened

comment #4

Rob says ...

:Looking to see dirt slung or some kind of finger-pointing amongst the priciples actually ends up ringing an Us Weekly vibe as much as "Why didn't you use the theme song?" does.

But Jeff wasn't looking to see dirt slung. He asked a perfectly reasonable question and certainly can't be blamed for the response of the panel.

comment #5

Geoff says ...

It's funny because it almost looks like Jamie is looking directly at Jeff and giving him that half-smile. I wonder if Jeff took that picture before or after he posed the question.

comment #6

Fred says ...

after reading Kim Masters' article, I'll revise my comments above and say that Jeff has some balls asking the tough questions, but I'm not surprised they gave hime the non-answers.

comment #7

Kris says ...

I'm not coming down on Jeff for asking what may or may not have been seen as an inflammatory question. I'm just saying - regarding the situation entire - who cares?

comment #8

berg says ...

I want to know where you park a bike at the Beverly Hills Four Seasons ... valet park?, chain it to a street sign on Doheny? ... peddle into the rear parking garage entrance and coast down a level?

comment #9

sad says ...

Jeff,

You're continuing to lower your standards for someone who prides himself as an evaluator of modern day cinema. First, you overrate "Superman Returns" (for reasons we'll probably never publicly know), then you post a myopic Michael Mann fanboy take on "Miami Vice." A film with a few fine set pieces, but a muddy mess beyond that. Tell us Jeff, did you really buy the relationship between Gong Li and Colin Farrell? No doubt Mann is a great filmmaker, but that doesn't mean "Vice" is one of his best. It is incredibly uneven and your continuing drumbeat for the film is startling in its desperation.

Do we dare guess what your opinion on "World Trade Center" will be?

comment #10

Rob says ...

:I'm not coming down on Jeff for asking what may or may not have been seen as an inflammatory question. I'm just saying - regarding the situation entire - who cares?

Who cares? I do and evidently Wells does. Speaking for myself one of the things I like in coverage about an event like this - and it applies to much of HE - is the 'local colour' e.g., Jeff's snapshots of whatever takes his interest and the little details he puts into his articles - things like the corpulent African-American journalists fawning all over Jamie Foxx - things another journalist wouldn't bother to mention. Amusingly, I've noticed Jeff's approach seems to enrage some posters no end, especially those with their own sites. Perhaps they're jealous, huh Kris?

comment #11

Regina Taylor says ...

Why were Foxx and Mann so bothered about your question.If it's a lie or a misinterpretation by Kim,then all they could have done was shrug their arms and put the records straight.Instead of that,they chose to be annoyed at that kind of question.

So what if Jamie Foxx was a diva onset(most A list movie stars).And the movie did turned out to be good,which in the end,is all that matters.I love the fact that Li Gong is getting raves for her work in Miami Vice.She deserves it after being ignored by the oscars for her bitchy role(the sole good thing about that film) in "Memoirs of a Geisha"

comment #12

Dubbs says ...

I can appreciate where Wells is coming from. Following the same predictable script at every PR junket must get tedious fast, and Wells trying to spice things up is admirable. If nothing else, it took guts.

On the flip side, I can also understand why Hollywood actors protect themselves at every turn, and turn PR events into BS events. I wouldn't exactly call the American media forgiving when it comes to celebrities revealing their shortcomings, so why should there be a false air of mutual trust? If I was a celebrity and knew that the media was already out to get me, and that whenever a nugget of my unsavoury or dishonorable behavior got leaked it would potentially alter peoples' impression of me in permanent and relentless ways, I'd hide my true self as much as I could too.

That said, it's unfortunate that media/celebrity relations are so scripted and fear-filled that Foxx didn't recognize that Wells was gently giving Foxx a chance to respond to these hot-off-the-press accusations, and tell his side of the story.

comment #13

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff,

If Michael Mann isn't perturbed by what Foxx did, why are you?

I see they're doing yet another picture together. What does that tell you?

comment #14

Jeffrey Wells says ...

Wells to Sad: YOU SAID: First, you overrate "Superman Returns" (for reasons we'll probably never publicly know)... REPLY: I love how people are expected to defend themselves after the tide has swung against a big popular (the cume is $162 million...not nothing) tentpole movie...it's like the Allied forces rounding up known Nazi loyalists after Germany's defeat and grilling them about the depth of their allegiance. I reacted to "SR" the way I did because the too-long issue aside (which hit me after the 2nd viewing, and which I wrote about) and the Kate Bosworth problem (which hit me right away and which I didn't make that much of a deal about because...I don't know why...in all candor I should have pointed this out more strongly), I felt the emotion that Byran Singer put into this film, and, being a lapsed Christian, found myself responding almost involuntarily to the Christ metaphor, and especially to the IMAX-3D scenes. YOU SAID: Then you post a myopic Michael Mann fanboy take on "Miami Vice"...a film with a few fine set pieces, but a muddy mess beyond that. REPLY: This is one of the few cops and bad guys movies I've seen that ISN'T about action set pieces as much as a meditation about lying and deception with a constant, continual hum-and-throb thing going on...it's got an integrated wholeness of mood and spirit. YOU SAID: Tell us Jeff, did you really buy the relationship between Gong Li and Colin Farrell? REPLY: What you mean is, you wanted Mann to supply a conventionally set-up basis for their attraction by way of more intimate backstory, a confessional scene or two from each beforehand to indicate they were looking or susceptible on some level. Did I buy their thing for each other? You bet. I bought the heat, I bought his aloneness and hers. Totally. YOU SAID: No doubt Mann is a great filmmaker, but that doesn't mean "Vice" is one of his best. REPLY: I said it was an 8, but that an 8 from Mann is like a 9.5 or 10 by general standards. YOU SAID: It is incredibly uneven and your continuing drumbeat for the film is startling in its desperation. REPLY: I'm just sharing/reporting what's going on outside and in-my-head (and without a word so far about Israel and Lebanon and Hezbollah, which I think is very much a part of you, me and the world vibe right now). If I seem over-"Vice"-ed the last few days it's because "Vice" has been THE THING the last few days... that's all. YOU SAID: Do we dare guess what your opinion on "World Trade Center" will be? REPLY: I've seen the first act of that film, and like I said in my Cannes filing it's very well shot, well cut, professionally made...but it's not very Oliver Stonesy. And then along came "Mr. Manhattan" a day or two ago saying that the two-guys-stuck-in-a-dark-hole and their bosses and wives worrying-above-ground factor is a dramatic problem that Stone can't quite circumvent. So who knows? I still say (and will continue to say to my dying day) that the Pasquale Buzzelli story (i.e., the Port Authority guy who was on the 22nd floor stairwell and went down with the North Tower and lived, and then went into a survival-guilt trip mode for a year or so, and who was found lying on a concrete slab about 30 or 40 feet above Nic Cage and whatsisname in the hole)..THAT is a much better story because it's crazier and more soulful, and it's about the belated recovery of a man's heart and soul in the wake of terrible tragedy.

comment #15

Jeffrey Wells says ...

WELLS TO STEELE: Read what Mann said. They accept what happened and regard it as strictly past tense. They're standing by the movie now. They're living in the present and moving on. I obviously reported that -- why do you need to me to reiterate it?

comment #16

CCA says ...

I like Jamie Foxx a lot less after coming across this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0t8gCtw0ISI&search=jamie%20foxx%20roast

I wonder how his career would have turned out if polished pros clowned him like this when he was starting out?

comment #17

oddDuck says ...

I think Wells handled the conference with class and integrity. However, I'm not gonna begrudge Mann and the rest for their "non-answer" answer at the press conference becase as others have commented, there's really nothing to gain from it at this point in time and the last thing the movie needs is a controversey that can give it negative buzz. The fact that Mann has already committed to working with Foxx again (albeit as a producer not director) is evidence enough that whatever Foxx's behavior/actions on this were, that he brings something real to the table, and in Mann's eyes, is a worthy collaborator. Gotta admit though, the stories about Foxx off camera do make him seem like an egotistical asshole.

comment #18

Anonymous says ...

Miami Vice looks awesome

comment #19

Goulet says ...

Nice to see that you're a bicycle man. I don't know about L.A., but in Montreal at least it's the best way to get around. Good for the health, good for the soul, good for the environment...

Oh, and I'm looking forward to MIAMI VICE, too.

comment #20

Kris says ...

Rob: That was an incredibly asinine stance to take indeed. It certainly has nothing to do with jealousy, and I'm not in here slinging vitriol. I simply don't see the value of this particular "story" in any way shape or form.

I too tend to enjoy the way Jeff puts his pieces together. As nuts as he may seem sometimes ( ;) ), he's still top-notch with the "j" word, and that's more than can be said about most in the entertainment journalistic arena. So don't jump in making accusations and assumptions that have no real basis to begin with - it paints a poor picture of YOU more than anything else. We're not talking about me, we're talking about a subject worthy (or in my opinion, unworthy) of scrutiny.

comment #21

Rob says ...

Kris, for such an innocuous post as mine I think you protest too much. Perhaps there's something you'd like to tell us?

comment #22

Kris says ...

You seem to know more about me than I do, so I'll let you have the honor. It obviously means a lot to you.

And if you expect calling someone "jealous" (in a round abot way) for no reason "innocuous," perhaps you should look up the word INNOCUOUS.

comment #23

Kris says ...

And do forgive my spelling blunder.

comment #24

Rob says ...

: You seem to know more about me than I do, so I'll let you have the honor. It obviously means a lot to you.

Let's be clear about this; you ask who cares about Wells' Vice article. I say I do & point out why I like Jeff's style. I make a general point that some posters have had a go at him for that (absolutely true if you've followed the threads here) and wonder out loud to you whether that might be jealousy on their part. All perfectly reasonable. The next thing I know you're calling me asine and accusing me of making assumptions and accusations.

But assumptions about what, Kris? Wells HAS been attacked in the past for the slant of his articles. That's a fact. And given the personal levels of vindictiveness aimed at him it could easily be down to envy on the part of some. So what's the problem? I said it before and I'll say it again; is there something you'd like to tell us? Because if there isn't one can only conclude that you've got a very thin skin indeed. In fact, with an attitude like yours don't ever try making it as an entertainment journalist. You'd be lucky to last half a day.

comment #25

Kris says ...

You started off on the wrong foot here. Let me address that.

I asked who cares about the story itself, not Wells' article. You're offering it as if I were taking some shot at Jefferey and his work. Jeffrey is a fine journalist and I'd never do that. I was moreover asking JEFFREY "who cares," as in "who cares about Foxx's diva-esque tendencies?" It seems incredibly vacant to me. So perhaps you misinterpreted the exact sentiment of my "who cares."

Now that that's out of the way, I'll get to your other stuff and address your back-peddling:

"Amusingly, I've noticed Jeff's approach seems to enrage some posters no end, especially those with their own sites. Perhaps they're jealous, huh Kris?"

If you can't own up to your own sideways accusations, such as the one above (I have a website, your accusing me of envy, let's not tap-dance here), then I guess I can accept that. But THAT was the cause of my reaction. Calling such a notion "asinine" was not, I feel, out of bounds. Attempting to make a point that someone with their own website is "enraged" by Wells' style (when I am anything but) has no bearing on the topic I brought up, which is, again, "why waste time on Foxx's bullshit?"

"In fact, with an attitude like yours don't ever try making it as an entertainment journalist. You'd be lucky to last half a day."

I hope you won't back-peddle again and consider this statement "innocuous." I'm certainly learning more and more each day to let crap like this go...but in any case, to address your heartfelt concern, I've been doing just fine at the various outlets that pay me. Thanks.

comment #26

Robert Hunt says ...

It's been several years since I was a regular junketeer, but my experience is that it's a lost cause trying to raise the level of questioning because for many of the so-called journalists at these things, the US Weekly marshmallow questions are exactly what they consider the pinnacle of their skills. I could give dozens of examples - as I'm sure you could as well - but one that stands out was at a roundtable for Warren Beatty's "Bulworth". Beatty was expansive and spoke at length about the same political issues included in the film, and it was obvious that many of the junket veterans were antsy, looking for the usual celebrity angle. Finally, near the end of the session one of - I think it actually was somebody from "Us Weekly", in fact - blurts out something like "How are the wife and kids doing?". Beatty gives a curt "just fine" kind of answer and the session ends. As we wandered back to our respective rooms, many of the junketeers were obviously disappointed by the interview. "All that political shit" the US Weekly writer complained. To which someone replied in complete seriousness and with a slap-on-the-back sense of comradery "Yeah, but at least you asked him about the wife and kids."
Sadly, this was far from the most embarassing thing I witnessed over the years, but it pretty much confirmed by view of many of those who write about the entertainment industry as shallow hacks who have already finished their stories in their heads before the interviews start (because they've a) written them before about some other film, some other star and b) already decided what the group consensus is going to be and don't want to make waves..)and just hope that they can get enough quotes to back it up..

comment #27

Kris says ...

Astute analysis, Robert. I kind of dropped my jaw when I saw LOTR DVDs coming out in the hopes of attaining autographs at the History of Violence junket last year. Sadly, most get into this business to rub shoulders with and fawn over the stars. And then they go out and sell their fawning and gaping in rags like Us Weekly. It takes one on ones to get anything of substance at junkets, in any case.

comment #28

Alan Green says ...

jeff

nice job. we needed that.

you may have better luck if you put an 'us magazine' spin on your questions. would suggest you dress up as a large woman and ask: jamie, are you really a bad boy the way that bitch kim what's-her-name says you are? (wait for oohs and ahs to subside) and, by the way, i think you're a fox - just like your name - and you can be my bad boy anytime!!

comment #29

Dixon Steele says ...

Jeff,

YOU obviously though enough about it to try to call Foxx on the carpet. Mann responded in a classy way. Fine.

But when I respond to your post, you get huffy.

Huh?

Haven't you learned by now that when you post something, it's going to get a response? Isn't this the point of having comments?

Or is it just the ones that don't agree with you, or question your actions, that you have a problem with?

comment #30

sceptic says ...

jeff -

Alright! Way to racially profile your competitors! And then to judge them by their weight as well - genius! I'm so thankful you've appointed yourself the arbitor of relevance

comment #31

AJW says ...

Why doesn't the Wired section show up on Elsewhere Classic anymore?

comment #32

Pinko Punko says ...

Somewhat off topic, I don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but Soundtrack info (people were wondering about music in earlier threads) is out now:
here.

I would like to add I think this sounds like somewhat of an upgrade from Collateral- at least the Goldfrapp tune- this is the kind of thing that would have been playing in the drug dealer's club before they shot up all the fish tanks. Very video-esque but a nice sinister vibe in a way. Would have worked much better for the club scene in Collateral, which was one of the least believable clubs I have seen in a movie in a long, long time.

comment #33

Anonymous says ...

what happened to the 'wired' window in the middle of the column?

comment #34

N.H. says ...

Those sistas were fine and curvy. I loved how Jeff tried to not report that.

comment #35

Cameron Turner says ...

I am one of the 40 or so reporters who participated in the "Miami Vice" press conference at the Four Seasons in L.A. on July 14 and I am shocked and deeply offended by Jeffrey Wells' racist, arrogant and inaccurate remarks. Mr. Wells' blog reflects not only a disgraceful (and anachronistic) racial bias, but a poor memory as well.

Mr. Wells says he urged his press colleagues to avoid "softball questions" in part because of a group of professionals he disdainfully refers to as "a cluster of female African-American journalists with a certain ampleness of physique." Mr. Wells says, "They were partly the reason I made my little speech beforehand. One look and I knew." What an arrogant, stupid and, yes, racist thing to say. Anyone with any sense knows you cannot take "one look" at a person's physical appearance know for a fact what that person will say, do or how they think. Such superficial judgments are the essence of prejudice and Mr. Wells, being an intelligent adult and a professional journalist ought to know better. Mr. Wells owes an apology not only to the black women professionals he insulted in his blog but to all persons who believe in fairness, equal opportunity and just plain decency.

Additionally, Mr. Wells is completely incorrect when he says the black women professionals who were sitting together at the press conference wasted time with obsequious, softball questions. These women, like most of the professionals in the room, used their time to seek basic information about the film. Darlene Donloe asked the actors to discuss any special weapons training they received for the numerous gun battles in the film. Sandra Varner asked director Michael Mann if his view of the characters had changed in the 20 years since the "Miami Vice" television show. Tanya Hart, after jokingly inquiring about Jamie Foxx's Lamborghini parked in front of the hotel, asked Mann, Foxx and Colin Ferrell about the film's heavy tone and the absence of the occasional light-heartedness between Crockett and Tubbs which was basic to the TV series. The final question of the press conference came from an black woman reporter who wondered how Colin Ferrell and Gong Li overcame their language barrier to create romantic and sexual chemistry together onscreen.

These are hardly silly, softball questions. They are the sorts of basic things that all entertainment journalists ask to complete their stories. Even inquiries about the sex scenes, use of music, etc. are worthwhile because that sort of thing is foundational to entertainment news.

Finally, Mr. Wells' recollection of his interchange with Michael Mann over the "Slate" magazine article is flawed at best. Mann did not evade Wells' question, nor did he get lost in a ramble about the process of filmmaking or on-set safety. Moreover, there was no six or seven second stunned silence between Wells' question and Mann's response. I was there and know for a fact that barely a beat passed. Since I work for a radio network and record everything digitally, I was able to double check. The time between Wells' question about "Slate" and Mann's answer was about 1.5 seconds. In other words, no one on the panel was dumbfounded or even taken aback by Wells’ “Slate" question.

More importantly, Mann dismissed the "Slate" story as "nonsense"(not "ridiculous," as Wells states) and went on to explain that the film crew left the Dominican Republic because of a shooting incident that made it impossible to guarantee the safety of cast and crew. Mann was clear that this was the reason they left the Dominican Republic. Jamie Foxx and Colin Ferrell co-signed Mann's comments by referring to several inaccurate stories that surfaced in the media during production. Ferrell said that before he and Jamie ever met reports came out alleging that they were at each other's throats.

Jeffrey Wells' column on the "Miami Vice" press conference reflects an infuriating racial bias and a lack of overall accuracy and professionalism that ought to make him ashamed. Hopefully, he will carefully re-examine his attitude, values and journalistic standards.

comment #36

Cameron Turner says ...

I am one of the 40 or so reporters who participated in the "Miami Vice" press conference at the Four Seasons in L.A. on July 14 and I am shocked and deeply offended by Jeffrey Wells' racist, arrogant and inaccurate remarks. Mr. Wells' blog reflects not only a disgraceful (and anachronistic) racial bias, but a poor memory as well.

Mr. Wells says he urged his press colleagues to avoid "softball questions" in part because of a group of professionals he disdainfully refers to as "a cluster of female African-American journalists with a certain ampleness of physique." Mr. Wells says, "They were partly the reason I made my little speech beforehand. One look and I knew." What an arrogant, stupid and, yes, racist thing to say. Anyone with any sense knows you cannot take "one look" at a person's physical appearance know for a fact what that person will say, do or how they think. Such superficial judgments are the essence of prejudice and Mr. Wells, being an intelligent adult and a professional journalist ought to know better. Mr. Wells owes an apology not only to the black women professionals he insulted in his blog but to all persons who believe in fairness, equal opportunity and just plain decency.

Additionally, Mr. Wells is completely incorrect when he says the black women professionals who were sitting together at the press conference wasted time with obsequious, softball questions. These women, like most of the professionals in the room, used their time to seek basic information about the film. Darlene Donloe asked the actors to discuss any special weapons training they received for the numerous gun battles in the film. Sandra Varner asked director Michael Mann if his view of the characters had changed in the 20 years since the "Miami Vice" television show. Tanya Hart, after jokingly inquiring about Jamie Foxx's Lamborghini parked in front of the hotel, asked Mann, Foxx and Colin Ferrell about the film's heavy tone and the absence of the occasional light-heartedness between Crockett and Tubbs which was basic to the TV series. The final question of the press conference came from an black woman reporter who wondered how Colin Ferrell and Gong Li overcame their language barrier to create romantic and sexual chemistry together onscreen.

These are hardly silly, softball questions. They are the sorts of basic things that all entertainment journalists ask to complete their stories. Even inquiries about the sex scenes, use of music, etc. are worthwhile because that sort of thing is foundational to entertainment news.

Finally, Mr. Wells' recollection of his interchange with Michael Mann over the "Slate" magazine article is flawed at best. Mann did not evade Wells' question, nor did he get lost in a ramble about the process of filmmaking or on-set safety. Moreover, there was no six or seven second stunned silence between Wells' question and Mann's response. I was there and know for a fact that barely a beat passed. Since I work for a radio network and record everything digitally, I was able to double check. The time between Wells' question about "Slate" and Mann's answer was about 1.5 seconds. In other words, no one on the panel was dumbfounded or even taken aback by Wells? ?Slate" question.

More importantly, Mann dismissed the "Slate" story as "nonsense"(not "ridiculous," as Wells states) and went on to explain that the film crew left the Dominican Republic because of a shooting incident that made it impossible to guarantee the safety of cast and crew. Mann was clear that this was the reason they left the Dominican Republic. Jamie Foxx and Colin Ferrell co-signed Mann's comments by referring to several inaccurate stories that surfaced in the media during production. Ferrell said that before he and Jamie ever met reports came out alleging that they were at each other's throats.

Jeffrey Wells' column on the "Miami Vice" press conference reflects an infuriating racial bias and a lack of overall accuracy and professionalism that ought to make him ashamed. Hopefully, he will carefully re-examine his attitude, values and journalistic standards.

comment #37

Ava DuVernay says ...

I'm a long-time fan of HOLLYWOOD ELSEWHERE. Whether I agree with your writings or not, I appreciate your candor as it relates to covering this business. But the statement below literally made me gasp...

"...a cluster of female African-American journalists with a certain ampleness of phsyique. They were partly the reason I made my little speech beforehand. One look and I knew."

Wow. You come off as small-minded to say the least, and a bigot at worst.

"ONE LOOK AND YOU KNEW?"

Shame on you, Mr. Wells.

comment #38

Robin Hood says ...

Jeff –

I took one look at you and I knew you were a poser--bitter man
of a certain age-- fumbling his way through--
a man who has loved and lost--
who prizes his intellect -– the value of which he strives–- oh, how
he struggles, sweats every day--
to prove with each tap
on the keyboard -– those keys you make
sing of clever things—
always right with TheWayYouSeeIt—
all for the warmth of praise and adulation
of virtual fans, you cyberman
with smug web critiques—such suave words you bleat—
you rise above as you push us down—
we the people of a certain gender, of a certain weight,
of a certain mind, of a certain family, of a certain loss
of a certain color, of a certain strength, of a certain empathy,
of a certain Constitution, of a certain experience, of a certain joy,
of a certain weakness, of a certain grief, of a certain regret,
of a certain belief, of a certain luck, of a certain dream…
and
of unascertainable worth.
Open eyes, tyrant prince basking in your humble kingdom
The people are watching now.

comment #39

Jess says ...

I am a fan of Colin Farrell! He is great! All my walls are covered with his posters;-)) Even when i was in Cyprus at Cyprus Four Seasons i took with me one of his signed fotos. Can you believe it?
The Hotel was very nice: these Cypriot evenings, wine tasting, white sandy beach, fabulous ocean and a lot of sun kissed women;-)