Jump to content
taro_twist

Interview + There's A Matt Good Biography?

By taro_twist, in Matthew Good

Recommended Posts

RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted
I think the tenant that "it doesn't come off as libellous" is key there... It can be fairly easy to construe anything a libel... all you need are a couple of inaccuracies.

exactly.

 

bishop: first and foremost, you have no idea if the author has credible sources. an author can sift through hundreds of interviews and speak to those who know or have worked with matt personally and build a true story about him without ever meeting or talking to him. again, see "inside steve's brain". the rest of your argument is based on speculation, so this is where i'll stop.

 

 

think 'true hollywood story'. most of those shows are produced, written and aired without permission from the subject. they very rarely contain actual interviews from the subject regarding the story, but they do have a lot of stock information and interviews from obscure people who encountered the subject throughout the subject's life (producers, acting coaches, high school teachers, friends, etc). only when the production steps out of bounds does the subject get involved.

 

i cant sit here and promise you that matt is ok with it, because he probably isn't... but to say that the author is going to get his ass sued is just as ludicrious as assuming that matt should have his shoes full of piss or whatever you were trying to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bishopx

bishopx

Posted
Posted
exactly.

 

bishop: first and foremost, you have no idea if the author has credible sources. an author can sift through hundreds of interviews and speak to those who know or have worked with matt personally and build a true story about him without ever meeting or talking to him. again, see "inside steve's brain". the rest of your argument is based on speculation, so this is where i'll stop.

I was merely pointing out possible arguments against said biography being sold for profit. All of which have loopholes to get around, but could be used to tie up said project for awhile. Also True Hollywood Story still has to credit their sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted (edited)

charles, you can build arguments for and against anything, but whats the point? especially if it's based solely on speculation?

 

 

anyone who takes the time time to write a book and get it published is going to credit sources. a publisher wouldn't be doing their job if the story went uncredited.

Edited by BOHICA
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted (edited)

there's a few version out and about. this is the actual video that got nominated and won a juno. the mainstream version, the one will all the text and stills was the version that matt ended up piecing together and hosting on his site etc etc.

 

 

 

amdn jesus, i forgot how much i love that song.

Edited by BOHICA
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sarah A

Sarah A

Posted
Posted
there's a few version out and about. this is the actual video that got nominated and won a juno. the mainstream version, the one will all the text and stills was the version that matt ended up piecing together and hosting on his site etc etc.

 

 

 

amdn jesus, i forgot how much i love that song.

Oh, I see. Thanks for that clarification! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter

Peter

Posted
Posted
there's a few version out and about. this is the actual video that got nominated and won a juno. the mainstream version, the one will all the text and stills was the version that matt ended up piecing together and hosting on his site etc etc.

 

 

 

amdn jesus, i forgot how much i love that song.

Actually I think it was the version that Matt pieced together that won the Juno. I remember watching (the Junos) and seeing the second version being used as the backdrop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted
Actually I think it was the version that Matt pieced together that won the Juno. I remember watching (the Junos) and seeing the second version being used as the backdrop.

check and see who won for best director.

 

 

hint: it wasn't matt. thus, matt's version didnt get nominated.

 

 

and old guy: i absolutely agree. ablum distribution and sales figures/gross profit for label definitely shouldn't be the determining factor in who wins what award, which i'm sure it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter

Peter

Posted
Posted
check and see who won for best director.

 

 

hint: it wasn't matt. thus, matt's version didnt get nominated.

 

 

and old guy: i absolutely agree. ablum distribution and sales figures/gross profit for label definitely shouldn't be the determining factor in who wins what award, which i'm sure it is.

A quick google search will show you that both Matt and the director were credited for the award:

 

"Good and co-director Ante Kovac were also nominated for a Juno Award for Best Video of the Year for "Weapon". Ante Kovac received the award alone on stage. Good later revealed in his blog that he had actually fired Kovac half way through the making of the video."

 

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Matthew-Good-Band

 

"Weapon" was released as a single before his debut solo album Avalanche was released on March 4, 2003. Good and co-director Ante Kovac were nominated and won a Canadian Juno Award for Best Video of the Year for "Weapon". Ante Kovac received the award alone on stage for two reasons. The first being that Matthew Good has banned the Juno's and second as Good later stated in his blog, he fired Kovac half way through making the video. He describes Kovac's first edit as "far too standard, with gratuitous and generic fades". So with the director gone, Matt went to video editor J.D. Shaw in Toronto, his aim to reassemble the footage. In the editing room, sharp scissors resulted in experiments with overlayed text, stills and stock photos, breathing the life back into the moving frames."

 

Source: http://www.estellasrevenge.com/august2006_linernotes.htm

 

 

Matt's edit was the one that was nominated. The video link earlier in this thread was never released to Much Music, or any other video music station. You don't nominated a video that, clearly, people have never seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RicardoObviouso

RicardoObviouso

Posted
Posted (edited)

it's easy to accept all that at face value, but alot of things went on during the creation of that video, and the result was to save face for everyone involved. i'll tell you a little bit about how productions work.

 

firstly, a team is hired to carry out a vision. in this case, vision was provided by ante kovac. when a production is complete and the piece is finished, it's credited. the producer chooses who gets credited for what work. in this case, since the original version was done almost entirely by ante, this is who gets top billing. matt is credited because, as always, he chooses to be active in direction. he's an artists and most artists use video as an avenue to utilize their creativity.

 

once production is complete, the video is submitted to the label, who owns it. labels submit videos to awards shows for review and the panel picks the best ones. in this case, the version seen above may not have been the mainstream version, but it was, in fact, the version submitted to the panel, by the label.

 

i will agree that matt's version is much better and that ante's is rather plain. however, ante's version is the one that got submitted, and this is the reason why he got nominated along with matt. if a director is fired before, during or after production, he loses his credit, because he no longer has creative control, so to credit him where credit ISN'T due would be unfair to the revisions done by the successor, AND to the previous because the finished product does't necessarily reflect his vision.

 

 

not only am i fairly well versed in the politics that go along with production, i happen to know very well what happened with this one in particular... so just take my word for it, put it in the bank and go make yourself some kraft dinner or something.

Edited by BOHICA
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Peter

Peter

Posted
Posted
it's easy to accept all that at face value, but alot of things went on during the creation of that video, and the result was to save face for everyone involved. i'll tell you a little bit about how productions work.

 

firstly, a team is hired to carry out a vision. in this case, vision was provided by ante kovac. when a production is complete and the piece is finished, it's credited. the producer chooses who gets credited for what work. in this case, since the original version was done almost entirely by ante, this is who gets top billing. matt is credited because, as always, he chooses to be active in direction. he's an artists and most artists use video as an avenue to utilize their creativity.

 

once production is complete, the video is submitted to the label, who owns it. labels submit videos to awards shows for review and the panel picks the best ones. in this case, the version seen above may not have been the mainstream version, but it was, in fact, the version submitted to the panel, by the label.

 

i will agree that matt's version is much better and that ante's is rather plain. however, ante's version is the one that got submitted, and this is the reason why he got nominated along with matt. if a director is fired before, during or after production, he loses his credit, because he no longer has creative control, so to credit him where credit ISN'T due would be unfair to the revisions done by the successor, AND to the previous because the finished product does't necessarily reflect his vision.

 

 

not only am i fairly well versed in the politics that go along with production, i happen to know very well what happened with this one in particular... so just take my word for it, put it in the bank and go make yourself some kraft dinner or something.

Meh, I stand by what I've seen and read.

 

And I don't eat Kraft Dinner, I enjoy real cuisine. Perhaps you should indulge, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

  I accept