Matt's Over / Under Column Discontinued
by Alex Billington
May 10, 2008
You should be seeing an Over / Under article here on Running Scared (pictured above) today. However, we have officially decided to discontinue Matt Goldberg's retrospective series indefinitely. Due primarily to numerous complaints and other internal decisions, we have decided that the Over / Under articles are not suited for FirstShowing.net and thus will no longer appear on the site. I know a lot of people were not too fond of Matt's writing anyway, but I want to make it clear that we truly appreciated his contributions and his opinion and it was simply an internal decision that we made for the betterment of the site and the consideration of our loyal readers.
Matt's series, that looked back at films of the not-too-distant past to see how time had treated them, lasted seven articles. You can read them here: James and the Giant Peach, Dangerous Liaisons, Forrest Gump, BASEketball, American Beauty, Down with Love, and The Boondock Saints. Thanks to Matt Goldberg for contributing and thanks to all of our readers for their valued feedback. We do read your emails!
Saw it coming.
Korinthian on May 10, 2008
Bad decision. It was entertaining to me, at least.
Aight on May 10, 2008
Wow, what a blow to the site! I really liked this column!
Eric Florenzano on May 10, 2008
C'mon guys. The articles were pretty good. And, face it, any article that is based on the precept that a movie is either over or underrated is going to be controversial. And most people will disagree with the guy.
Douglas on May 10, 2008
lol Runing Scared was a terrible film, I would have loved to read someones comments on it 😛
Mike on May 10, 2008
Ah ha. So, First Showing has no subjective criticism? Are you tallying all my complaints about your misogyny?
Andrew Wickliffe on May 10, 2008
The controversy/discussion was definitely implied in this type of article. But where the dude failed most was the exchange that followed. Pompous doesn't begin to describe it. Maybe FS can continue a column like this, but with someone else at the wheel
dale on May 10, 2008
I think the only problem with the article was that I knew exactly what stance the author was going to take before I started reading it.
David on May 10, 2008
I agree that the article should have been discontinued...not because of the controversy as much as the authors reactions to everyones criticism...he was rather childish and almost cruel to the readers... No offense to readers but they are supposed to be ignorant at times...that is why they are the ones looking at the site reading articles written by people who know a little about their core subject...the author is supposed to raise above that and show a little professionalism... On the other hand I did enjoy the article myself and I liked what the author had to say IN the article...not in the comments...
Maxx on May 10, 2008
What was the fucking problem with these articles? All he was doing was calling movies overrated, and he hit the nail on the fucking head with Boondock Saints.
DCompose on May 10, 2008
I gotta say I actually enjoyed his articles, gotta say I was curious to say what he had to say on Running Scared seeing as it's one of my favs.
Nick on May 10, 2008
Well... your (FS's) announcment of Goldberg's termination was so dramatic, I had to read his articles, and to tell ya the truth, most of his arguments of the movies he wrote about were clearly put out and had legs to stand on....I guess he was a bit emotional (in the I-Hate-That-And-I-Hate-This kind of way), with the way he put those arguments to use, but hey, so's Howard Stern, and he got hisself a crowd out there!!! I guess people don't like it when the films that twanged a chord in their heart are dissed by someone, and from what I read in the comments of his articles, most readers agreed with him, or the way he argued, so either you guys just didn't like him over there, or you're afraid of a little rating drop on your site.
israelidude on May 10, 2008
I have to agree with FirstShowing.net. Like others have said you could tell what decision the author had made before you clicked for his review. Good decision
Mubariz on May 10, 2008
I'd have to agree... this article was to predictable week after week. And I'm glad to see it go.
TheGuyInThePJ's on May 10, 2008
Alex, I read some of these articles, and I thought they were intelligently written. The nature of the column naturally breeds controversy. Movies in general are a topic people passionately fight over. You can't sanitize everything. However, I think the idea of trashing the guy publicly is worse than anything written in his column. Since you are so obviously eager to project professionalism on this site, then a dismissal like this should be done behind closed doors. Writing an article like this is just a shitty way to treat someone who worked for you and contributed to the growth of your site. Run Matt, RUN!!!!
Ray on May 10, 2008
Its fine to have your opinions about movies and such, but the comments after his articles from him just expressed "me smart, you dumb". He called everyone idiots and bragged about his money, writing ability, and taste. This is a discussion site, and that is fueling it the wrong way.
Kifer on May 10, 2008
That's what ya get for fucking with Forrest Gump. Mama said movie critics are like a box of chocolates, you never know had bad they gonna suck.
PimpSlapStick on May 10, 2008
At least he got it right on Forrest Gump....boy, that was even more overrated than Crash. Still, you can't be thin-skinned as a critic. People are going to disagree with your opinion, and some are even ignorant dumbtards. Just explain your reasoning and move on...
Gil on May 10, 2008
For fuck sake guys, this was just a discussion thread. Where one person gave his POV, asking for others to talk about it. Why has this turned into such a war zone? So much so, this feature was discontinued. Unbelievable.
Rob on May 10, 2008
it's b/c the dude was a total ass. a discussion is fine, but when you're as self important as that douche and as caustic, it's no longer a good variable for the site. have you seen his own website? "that great matt goldberg flavor with all the aftertaste" eff that pompous dumbass. the dude has no interest in a discussion. he just wants to propagate his own BS, and I'm glad Alex booted him. the site doesn't need that kinda attitude and arrogance. intellectual discussion is cool, but that's not what dumbass goldberg was offering. he wanted to hear himself talk
dale on May 10, 2008
I agree. Continue this over/under set up with some one a little bit more civilized.
buttons on May 11, 2008
I don't know, I kinda liked the column. On another, unrelated note- Andrew Wickliff is right. You do come across as slightly misogynistic sometimes. Or perhaps it is too strong a word- presumptuous and leaning towards the stereotype is all.
VanWorden on May 11, 2008
The problem I think with over/under is that it needed two people writing the thing, if nothing else for balance Matt could've been Siskel to another cat's Ebert.
PimpSlapStick on May 11, 2008
I agree with #25. This would be a great feature if it showed two different views on a movie, and then allowing the readers to discuss the opinions without having the authors interjecting negative comments against the readers, even if the readers take jabs at the authors. The only thing accomplished by exchanging insults is that it takes away from the original idea of the discussion.
Steve on May 12, 2008
I guess my question is, what exactly is First Showing? Every article has some editorial flare to it (Bush is dumb, this movie will suck, etc.) so the over/under thing didn't seem that out of the ordinary. That's what makes this site interesting, though. But maybe I'm just a big crazy dummy.
DCompose on May 12, 2008
it was a good idea, but matt was immature and petty in the comments. he couldnt support his article without deriding his audience. you should write one alex! i have a feeling that yours would be slightly better received.
Josh on May 12, 2008
i wont miss his work it was a downer
Jont on May 19, 2008
New comments are no longer allowed on this post.