Talk:Honky Tonk Freeway

Tax avoidance

I've edited some recent contributions on the tax avoidance situation quite severely because 1 they sound like a personal reflection 2 they demonstrate a misunderstanding of the Rossminster schemes involved, which were wholly legitimate, rather than a scam of the sort portrayed in Mel Brookes' The Producers, and most importantly their investors certainly did stand to profit if the film made a profit (it's ironic that the Ramsay case meant that few, if any, of Boyd's investors ever managed to garner their hoped for tax relief but there's no suggestion that the schemes themselves were scams) 3 the remarks are unsourced.

I have retained jus this paragraph because I don't know that it's factually untrue

Just before the film was released, EMI sold the ancillary rights under this scheme to German investors in need of a tax loss, in an effort to try to recoup their $11,000,000 loss. When the movie's distributors learned this fact, they were no longer financially motivated to distribute the movie widely and consequently released the film for only one week.

but common sense tells me that EMI would be unlikely to sell on an investment as a loss before that loss materialised and I have flagged it with a 'citation needed' template and in the course of time, say a month or so, will remove the paragraph if a source isn't provided.

My understanding was that Universal was fed up with the film, worried about it's anti-americanism and angered that Thorn-EMI had sold the video rights behind their back. After Variety magazine's infamous emperor-clothes moment not only did they pull the film but they compensated their theatres for loss.

I can add the contributor contrives to reverse the normal emphasis given to the fact that the film was financed by tax avoidance schemes, which is of course that without this ultimately abortive species of financing, which proved so disastrous to the British film industry in general, the film likely would not have got made.

If the contributor wishes to valorize the film then he should supply some sources, not his opinion: that is after all the Wikipedia way. FightingMac (talk) 04:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Reception

The original treatment was replaced by this with no sources

Reviews for the film were widely varied. It was released in theatres for only one week. Very few people ever had a chance to see the film during its release. Since its release on cable TV and video/DVD, it has attained a cult following. Reviews by people who have seen the film subsequent to its inadequate release are extremely favorable and many question the critic's reviews written for the film at the time of it's short one week release. When a studio wants to "dump" a film, they have the might and the power to do it. This film is a perfect example. The tax schemes behind the financing of this film and the loss of money by some entities were the cause for the failure of this film, not the quality of the film.

I'm sure editors will recognise that this needed blanking in its present form and I have resupplied from memory the original treatment.

Can I ask the contributor involved to keep the material about Variety slating the film, which is a matter of historical fact (and not opinion), in any future edit he proposes and in general to avoid using Wikipedia as a personal platform for his opinions and above all to source potentially contentious material. Thank you FightingMac (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Razzie nomination

I've restored the 'Nominations' section noticing the Razzie nomination which had been blanked. Blanking it amounts to vandalism and I ask the contributor involved to desist. FightingMac (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I know for a fact

I was personally involved with the production of this film. I was privy to conversations and interactions with many of the people involved with the production including Barry Spikings at EMI. I was informed by people intimately involved with the finances and the ultimate demise of this film, which occurred prior to its release. The film is not anti American, it is just a silly, funny comedy. However, anti-Americanism is the excuse the distributors wished to use for dumping the film and that is the way it was communicated to the press through very powerful press agents at the time (PKM). Although the primary press wrote reviews of the movie as directed, there were several major reviewers who wrote their own opinions. If all the reviews had been like Rex Reed’s in the Daily News (I have a hard copy of the review, but I was unable to find a copy of it on-line for posting) the movie would have been a smash hit, however, it had been decided well before its release that this movie would not make any money and every effort was made by the distributors toward this end. No expense was spared in the effort to kill this movie and it has nothing to do with its content or quality. There were politics behind the scenes that had to do with the finances of this film and the demise of this film was strictly a power play on the part of some very, very powerful studio executives at the time (who are since deceased). It is amazing to me how there are people who are so determined to continue to disseminate the lies and vitriol that was made up about something that was meant to be simply fun entertainment. The budget of the film tells the tale and if anyone editing for Wikipideia can’t see that obvious fact, then I have to wonder why they are editing for a publication that supposedly wants only verifiable facts. The comments made regarding the content of the film being the cause of its failure are the editor’s opinion. I don’t know what the editor ‘s background is, but unless he’s actually been involved in the production of a Hollywood movie, or studied Hollywood and its economics I can’t see how he could begin to understand the mechanism of the Hollywood machinery. The review in the New York Times was not the cause of the failure of this movie it was the result of the failure of the movie, which occurred before any critics ever even saw it for review. While you can verify all the bad reviews you like, it doesn’t account for what actually happened.Juliacharles (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello Julia. Thank you for responding. I see you have reverted the 'Reception' section, including the reference to Variety I particularly aked you not to delete, but have left intact my other edits. You and I will have to agree some sort of consensus if we are to avoid an edit war.

When I came to edit this article a few weeks ago the film was identified as an American one and the infox box showed its budget as breaking more or less even, that is to say it showed a gross figure of some $22 million against a budget of $24 million. In fact it grossed just $2 million, was an English film and was an historic box office flop, quite likely the largest by a long way of any English film to that point. You will agree I hope that the article needed editing and I did so leaving as much of the original as I could. For example I left the 'Plot' section as I found it.

It is an extremely notable film because it changed the direction of the British film industry for a decade or more. You say you were intimately involved with the film but there are many others who were involved with it still alive today, many of whose lives were profoundly impacted by its failure. For them it was very much more than just a 'fun' picture.

Are you a regular editor of Wikipedia? I ask because I have to say you seemingly have a very cavalier attitude to its core principles, amongst which are that you should not use Wikipedia as a soapbox and you should source contenious issues. Nevertheless you are using it as a soapbox and you are not providing sources. In a nutshell it's not good enough that you 'know for a fact': you must show the fact is reliably documented.

The reasons for the film's failure are treated at considerable length in Walker's book cited in the article, a respected history of British film making in the 1970s and 1980s. Over the next few days I will expand my edit to include more of this. If you know of a contrary source by all means include it, but your edit cannot be based on just your personal opinion. I ask you to get real about editing an internationally respected on-line encylopedia and consider your responsibilities to the Wikipedia community.

I'm going to revert the 'Reception' section back and I ask you not to revert it in the same fashion again. In particular cutting the reference to Variety must count as vandalism as it is one of the notable critical reviews of the past 50 years, indeed part of film 'folk-lore'. Walker's book makes it quite clear (as conceded in the book by its British co-producer Don Boyd) that this was the trigger for the film's failure.

I don't know how to advise you about promulgating your opinions. Failing all else I suggest you might like to write an article or blog about it in the hope that a future editor might note it. Better would be to find some sources. You say you have a hard copy of a favourable review in The Daily News. You don't need an online URL to cite it. Just enter a sentence or two describing the review and cite it using the 'Cite' menu at the far right of the tool menu at the top of the edit box when you enter your edit (it will show a drop down 'Template' box, choose 'News' and fill in the relevant entries omitting 'URL').

I hope you will agree that I have tried to be as helpful to you as I can in the circumstances. Above all Julia, please don't involve the community in yet another pointless edit war which you cannot possibly hope to win if it goes to arbitration. FightingMac (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DEAR MR. FIGHTER - The New Yorker cartoon is an effort to squash the excellent Rex Reed review. You obviously know that and you've taken great pleasure in citing it to show this fact. You've removed the reference I made to positive viewer reviews at IMDb, because you object to any correction of the perception of this movie. You are enjoying your power with your edits in the same fashion the studio enjoyed their power to influence the press and harm people who displeased them by running over budget and stealing away the ancillary rights before their product was released. You seem quite personally invested in your edits.

In light of this fact, it is you who are using Wikipedia as a soap box to express your opinion that the failure of the film was due to its critical reception. The truth is that the critical reception was dictated by the distributing studio and that is the reason why when honest people view the movie the response is almost always "I don't get it! What were the critics talking about." "This movie is hilarious." You enjoy removing any references stating same.

It was my understanding that a primary core principal of Wikipedia is that it is not about WINNING!. Clearly, you are ALL about winning. The tone of your response to me is about what I would have expected given the nature and number of edits you've made to this piece. It shows one thing about you and one thing only, which is you are not concerned about the facts, you are ALL about WINNING! Given that fact, you don't have to worry because I will not waste my time fighting with someone who takes obvious joy in continuing to dissemminate the fabricated perception of the reasons for the failure of this movie. I can cite an email from Don Boyd himself which illustrates that my edit is correct, however, with the type of aggressive and sour editing you enjoy doing, it is obvious it would only spur you on to something even more distasteful. You WIN!!! You are the big WINNER! I suspect that every aspect of your life is about winning no matter what the truth might really be, until the day comes that it's over. In the end the truth will prevail. For starters the truth about you is out. Mr. WINNER.Juliacharles (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Julia, I'm truly sorry my edits have provoked this response from you. I edit across a whole range of topics in Wikipedia, most of it copy editing, and I've been editing since the project's inception. As it happens I am aware that there elements of truth in what you have to say about the machinations of the money men behind the film but you simply have to get yourself a source Julia and that's all there is to it. If there's a story out there that hasn't seen the light of day then go for it, but Wikipedia simply isn't the right forum for that. Once it's out then that's the time for it.

The best I can suggest you do is write an authoritative looking paragraph which avoids sounding like a private opinion (rather on the lines of the paragraph of yours I've retained in the lead section). Chances are this will go unchallenged or if it is challenged with a 'citation needed' template will survive a long time and, who knows, might then be supported by another contributor with an appropiate citation.

For what it's worth I did see the film back in the '80s and thought it tolerably amusing. But then I'm British and I did notice its hard edge (and frankly its immaturity as well) and can well understand it flopped in America. I'm not surprised its DVD release years on has been more successful and think it likely it may well achieve cult status. Again you could help by providing citations.FightingMac (talk) 08:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm Working On It

I concur with the need for citations, and will take up the project (have already started thinking about it) to provide same. It will not be a simple matter, and it is not a project that I relish doing. In fact, it will be a painful process. I am all too familiar with the fact that the production of this film was not “fun,” in spite of the fact that the content was meant to be nothing but fun. Some of the research I’ve done so far has started out with how many high profile British (or for that matter any British directors) have ever directed an American comedy.

Although there have been a few foreign born directors of American comedies such as the German born, Ernst Lubitsch, to date I have not found an instance when the director of an American comedy was British. There are also few instances of American directors who have directed American comedies, I came across Terry Gilliam (an American) a long time member of Monty Python who also eventually directed one of their films, (Holy Grail) after easing his way up to the position. For the most part he was so assimilated that most people don’t realize he is American. While it is true that HTF was a British film, the script was written by an American writer and all the actors are American (no Brits using American accents) and it takes place in America. However, given the fact that it had a British director and producer, it has earned the reputation of being anti-American.

The truth is that HTF was never meant to be such a huge “Hollywood” movie. It originally started out as an idea of Don Boyd’s that he intended to both produce and direct as a small independent film. If it had never gotten into the hands of John Schlesinger, there’s no telling what might have happened to it. Most likely the same thing that happens to so many screenplays - nothing. Getting a script made into a movie is a matter of both talent and luck. It is a very flukie process that is mostly in the hands of powerful agents and wheeler dealers who are first and foremost, in my opinion, rogues.

On one hand it could be said that Schlesinger getting a hold of the script was an exciting development. However, this brings us back to the crux of the matter if you ask me, which is the “across the pond” factor. Let’s face it, similar to the fact that many people in the southern United States still wave the Confederate flag, the differences between America and Britain harkens back to colonial days and is clearly illustrated in the first successful American written comedy, The Contrast, by Royal Tyler, written in 1787. Apart from all the machinations of egomaniacal, backstabbing, love you “Darling,” Hollywood, it is alright for us to poke fun at ourselves, but don’t you (Brits) dare say a word about us, ESPECIALLY, making fun of us. Even if Don Boyd had somehow “magically,” successfully managed to produce, direct and distribute HTF, it still would have suffered from this defining “contrast” so to speak.

On the other hand, Schlesinger getting a hold of the script was its death knell. The fact that it was a high profile British director, only contributed to it being a high profile unmitigated disaster. There came a point in the production of the film that John Schlesinger became most acutely aware that the perception would be negative because he was British, combined with his great insecurity about directing comedy in the first place. Whereas, he could get away with it on a drama, as he did with Midnight Cowboy, he realized that comedy was another matter; Since he was British, the movie would be perceived as anti-American. If the director had been American, this perception never could have existed.

Schlesinger manifested this in very insecure behavior and decided somewhere in his mind that he had to do something about it by spending too much money and began spreading the money around as favors that he could cash in on in the future when things went south for him as he was predicting in his mind. All this was going on in his head prior to principal photography. He vacillated between spending and spending, to insulting the executives in the hopes they would cease production and put it on the shelf in mid-stream (which they almost did.) His insecurity became a critical factor and had an insidious effect on the whole production. It infected everyone and at a later date (it took three years to produce) became like a disease that ran to a fevered pitch as it came closer and closer to the film being pushed toward release. He didn’t want the film released in the worst way- he began stepping on people’s toes in the hopes to avoid it. The result was that he made a lot of people very angry at him and they retaliated in the process of distributing the film.

Behind the scenes, people were running around like chickens with their heads cut off trying to patch up their financial losses as a consequence of Schlesinger’s spending spree, and consequently sold the ancillary rights (including the video cassette rights, which at the time was a brand new medium.) All this, was on top of the “Roy Tucker Tax Avoidance” business. This is how it turned into such a train wreck and it all happened way before any critics saw the movie that was released in August, 1981. In screenings for the critics the reception was initially quite good, but as the story unfolded and people began to retaliate by exercising their power, anything positive got buried underneath a landslide of reviews that focused on the American comedy directed by a British director aspect. No fun whatsoever!

And the person it was the least fun for was the writer. Everyone agreed for a first screenplay, it was extremely promising. If it had not been put under the microscope of being such a high profile British run debacle, the writer would most likely have had a stellar career. I found a short review in Variety, but I have never read the “Variety” review you cite, and I have ordered a copy of it and will receive it in the mail soon, as I have not been able to find it on line (thankfully) I am not looking forward to reading it after all these years because I’m sure it will not be “fun.” Please don’t republish it. When I have gathered all my sources together and put all my ducks in a row, I will attempt to write a paragraph as you’ve described with citations, in order to possibly set the record straight with respect to HTF. I will thank you in advance for your consideration towards me and will appreciate any cooperation you might provide.

I apologize if my previous message was "harsh" towards you. I do not normally edit Wikipedia and have only come to this "stub" as it pertains to me personally. I am not adept in this area and have fumbled my way to even finally find this discussion page, but it seems necessary at this point in time for me to give it a directed amount of attention and somehow figure out a way to set the record straight. I will do my very best to provide the citations you require. Juliacharles 11:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Juliacharles 12:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliacharles (talk • contribs) Juliacharles 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Honky Tonk Freeway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825090048/http://pulsethemagazine.com/htfw.html to http://pulsethemagazine.com/htfw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)