Talk:Honky Tonk Freeway

message: 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)
thread_title: Tax avoidance

message: 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)
thread_title: Reception

message: 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)
thread_title: Razzie nomination

message: 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)
thread_title:  I'm Working On It 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified