Response by Phil Hay on monican_spies

He almost makes it sounds like Peter was attacking him. However eloquently he might put it. I don’t think Peter was attacking them, I believe he was just voicing his opinions and thoughts on the movie what’s wrong with that? Any who it is interesting how he mentions the cuts etc. that they ran into while making the movie, and it would be equally interesting to see their version (un cut) of the movie.

I do find it very strange that critics are not taken to task about voicing negative opinions about movies even though they usually have no experience making them. For filmmakers, on the other hand, it is considered bad etiquette to criticize the work of other filmmakers. I've always thought it should be the other way around.

So first I'm not allowed to contribute to the movie-- and now I'm not allowed to have an opinion on it? Whatever...

I don't think that was the writer intention. He didn't seem to me like he wanted to deny you the right to voice your opinions. He was simply replying to some pretty harsh attacks on his work on your part.

I had the misfortune to work for an art gallery that sold paintings to go 'over the couch' basically. The designers told us what to paint, what colors, etc. Very depressing. My brother told me 'if they weren't selling art, they'd be selling can openers'. I think the same could be said for critics.

I think its laughable the way Phil says that you assume what their collective creative intent was, when all you were doing is pointing out the very obvious cliches presented in the product.

Just some final thoughts on the movie and Phil's reply to my interview.

I agree that the director's cut would have done a better job in presenting the story, themes and characters as they were intended by the writers.
But I doubt I'd have liked it better since I don't find that story, those themes, or those characters all that resonant with Aeon Flux.

I have multiple drafts of the script in my hands. There is no further development of Aeon's and Trevor's character or their relationship in it. If anything, Trevor in the script is wimpier than the one in the movie: Aeon and Trevor, on the run from Oren's soldiers, hands him a gun to help fight them back. Trevor looks at the gun skeptically. T: "I'm not very good with these." A: "Get good." Trevor reluctant to use a gun? The Trevor Goodchild I remember managed to shoot Nader in the forehead while clenching Aeon's tongue in his mouth.

In the script, Aeon takes on the mission to assassinate Trevor before Una is killed. At that point, she doesn't even know why he should be killed. She follows the order because she's told to. She doesn't even raise the issue of who would replace him if she kills him. It turns out the Handler is on Oren's side, making Aeon a dupe and a pawn. I'm sorry, but Aeon is nobody's pawn. Not just a good fighter (that's the easy part)-- she should be a master of seduction, entrapment, conspiracy, strategy (the hard stuff). SHE's the one setting the traps. Not in the script.

When discovering that everyone is being cloned and reassigned their identities repeatedly, Aeon should realize that Una isn't actually her sister. Or at least- if she's a thinking person- be forced to rethink her assumptions about their relationship. Not in the script.

Many of the elements that made it into the movie were brought up, considered, fought over, and rejected when writing the original series. That's why I'm dismayed at seeing their inclusion in the movie. Such as:

Aeon's V.O. narration. Way back, this was suggested by MTV as a way to help explain the story. I was vehemently opposed to this. Explaining herself to the audience is absolutely antithetical to Aeon's character. We finally settled on Trevor to provide the narration.

The filmmakers' diligence made possible the release of the remastered original episodes? Hmm.. Is that why I should overlook the movie's flaws? If they hadn't fought the fight, it might have been lost? From the looks of things, they fought and they still lost (even Phil admits this). Yes, the project could have been buried. Over the years it died and came back several times. All along, I pushed for making the movie animated. The studio, after the disastrous earlier script by MF, even told me they wouldn't rule that out. The fact is, Paramount has a very good track record when it comes to animated movies based on their T.V. series. The Beavis and Butthead movie; The Southpark movie; The Rugrats movie (I worked on that one); The Spongebob movie. All Paramount releases. All low-budget 2D animation. All very faithful to their original versions. All very profitable.

Well said, Peter.

Yeah, now you're talking.

And those friggin stupid one-liners like, "Good boys...." Austin Powers, anyone or wts!? There's things about the Paramount effort I am impressed with - the dreamy finale where Aeon is scrambling between the streamers on the underbelly of the relical I found wonderfully Fellini. And I think it's a great tidea about our mortality being the thing that gives we mortals significance in the cosmic scheme of things denied even God and all her angels...but, damn it, these fkn Hollyhood executives have GOT to wake up one of these days to reckon with the fact of it that it's not so simple as they apparently think, doing the Creative Thing, there. They have got to do what they know how to do which is cut the deal. And leave the creative preocess to the fkn creatives. You don't just go: "Wow, here, okay, I can do this! Here - here, I'll just pick up this here word processor and wirte me some clever dialog and hey! Wow, isn't this fun, here, writing, the writing thing, wow, well isn't this something! I'll be darned." FUCK YOU. I mean, FUCK you fkn fools because you DONT KNOW shit okay