Talk:Larry David

executive producer

is it worth writing that larry is the executive producer of envy? this info is available on imdb, i dunno...

why not?

Ok then, if it isn't too controversial, something will be written on his executive producer credit...Mrfixter 02:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool 81.157.5.201 00:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments about sour grapes

I would like to say that the sentence though it's defended heartily by some stalwart David fans is not encyclopedic. I am a massive fan of Mr. David, which fans are criticising sour grapes? Its pointless to have that statement in. --Mrfixter 03:38, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

though i didn't state it as well as a good wikipedia writer can, it's not pointless. i'm new to writing like this, so i'm trying to figure out how to make 'sour grapes' not sound like it's perceived globally as a total failure, which it isn't (my evidence comes mainly from visiting different review sites). if one wants to get nitpicky about being encyclopedic, there's no substantial difference between saying "some stalwart David fans" (which you criticized in your edit summary) and saying "fared poorly both critically and at the box office" (which you left in your edits). one can just as easily counter, "who are these critics?" or "whose criteria for the box office? what was the budget? how many theaters participated in the release? what were their intentions?" if you can write a smoother, more accurate tag to counter what is only negative about 'sour grapes' in your version, then do so. otherwise, i'm gonna keep hammering at this whether you like it or not. you can't use the word "encyclopedic" correctly to deny balance. if 100% attribution is the way you want to play it, then i'll just follow you around and delete all your non-attributed/substantiated comments. do you want to help me with this, or shall we fire up (rather, continue) the revert game? i don't have a problem with you axing the autofellatio part, but it's also not encyclopedic to allow 'sour grapes' to sound universally disliked. SaltyPig 05:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Some stalwart David fans" is vague. Claims about critics and box office can be supported by reputable sources. For a list of some critical reaction, see IMDb's list of external reviews for Sour Grapes, including a review from a nobody called Roger Ebert. Those reviews, at very best, can be described as lukewarm and to be honest, the majority are not flattering reviews. Saying that Sour Grapes was mauled both critically and at the box-office is not denying that there are fans who love this movie. By your reasoning, we should also put "but some stalwart David fans also dislike Sour Grapes". What fans think about Mr. David is totally irrelevant to an encyclopedia article about Mr. David, unless he has actually said something about his fans etc. Inserting that fans of Mr. David like Mr. Davids work is not relevant. Opinions about whether someone liked or disliked Sour Grapes from a non-reputable source are NOT relevant. Maybe you liked the movie. So what? I like Mr. Davids shirts, but what is important is facts, and perhaps annoyingly, facts about opinions and critical reaction that can be proven IS factual.

I would also argue that "small cult following" is also irrelevant. It is so small as to be vanishingly small, and therefore irrelevant.

100% attribution is a good idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for original research.

If some stalwart David fans are just you and your buddies, or me and my buddies, it is not relevant. NPOV does not mean every opinion has to be heard. Mr. David and I may think that Sour Grapes didn't do very well, but that doesn't have to be balanced with anything, because it DIDN'T do very well. My intention is not to smear Mr. David, or soften the blow. My intention is to write a kick-ass encyclopedia article about Mr. David.

You raise decent points about Sour Grapes budget etc., and I think that these issues should be dealt with on the Sour Grapes article.

On your 'hammering' comment above, I would advise you that editing articles on wikipedia are not tests of stamina. I would like to keep the atmosphere civil, and assume good faith. Threatening to follow someone around is also not a tactic you should employ.

I think we can and should work together and make this article excellent, one that does Mr. David proud, but avoids hagiography or hero worship, because that does a disservice to the readers.

Articles we both need to take into consideration:

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia:Cite_sources

Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Wikipedia:Wikiquette

Wiki Style and how-to

--Mrfixter 13:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i will look at those links and perhaps comment more knowledgeably later, including regarding the practice of targeting one user for extra scrutiny. however, i know already that there's a fundamental dishonesty operating at wikipedia in those who would forge from nowhere a line separating statements such as "fared poorly at the box office" from statements such as "small cult following". fared poorly according to who? small cult following according to who? what's the difference? this illusion that everything is verifiable with a godly source is nonsense. i looked further last night into the release of 'sour grapes', and it was trickled into theaters. variables such as that make it quite dubious to retain "fared poorly at the box office", of which you apparently didn't disapprove, while jettisoning "small cult following" as "irrelevant". what exactly is relevant? you decry "what fans think about larry david" for this article, yet "poor box office" is nothing but the financial manifestation of the same thing. i really think this artifice of clearly drawn lines i've seen at wikipedia is not helpful to the larger goal of spreading accurate information about a subject. but like i said, i need to look into it more.

it does seem to me that you disliked the autofellatio subject, and decided to nitpick the miniscule part that the writer of that paragraph (me) wanted put back in. if that's not the case, then, being such a big larry david fan, perhaps you could temporarily move attention away from 'sour grapes', and deal with provable inaccuracies/vagueness such as, "In 2000, David started his own show for the HBO cable television channel, entitled Curb Your Enthusiasm,...", and "...he became a writer for NBC's Saturday Night Live from 1984 to 1985."

for now (until somebody adds more, or until i get better at writing in this style), i would be happy changing the 'sour grapes' portion to the following: "Hoping to move from TV to movies, David wrote and directed the 1998 film Sour Grapes, about two cousins who feud over a casino jackpot. It was not a commercial success."

what is your opinion of that? it's true. it's actual... is everything satisfactual? SaltyPig 14:45, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Fared poorly at the box office" is provable! There is evidence! We can both agree that it wasn't a success, according to the general understanding of "success". Prove small cult following! Your opinion is NOT evidence. The difference is that one is provable, one is not. However, I am willing for the whole comment about Sour Grapes commercial and critical failure to be left out, and moved to Sour Grapes.

Mr. Davids output is relevant, and its critical and box office reception are also relevant. It gives the non-fan reader information. The so-called "fact" of the "small cult following" of Sour Grapes adds nothing to the casual readers understanding of Mr. David. It just broadcasts that Sour Grapes has a small cult following. Tell me why this small cult is relevant to anyone apart from themselves. It reeks of POV-fanboy nonsense. Why not put CYE has a large-to-medium cult following?

RE:innacuracies CYE was started in 2000? Whats your problem? I hope you're not confused by the fact that in 1999, Mr. David appeared in an hour long special on hbo called Larry David: Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is separate from Curb Your Enthusiasm. Maybe I would change "show" to "series". Maybe there should be something added about the HBO special?

As far as working for SNL, will check out the documentary on Seinfeld dvd, I think it is discussed on it. Is it wrong?

Hoping to move from TV to movies - Did Mr. David say that in an interview? He made Sour Grapes to hopefuly move from TV to movies? Source. I don't mind putting stuff about commercial and critical unsuccess.

Let's try and work together. You may have noticed I have not reverted your small cult following yet, I am trying to show good faith.

In the spirit of working on other parts of the article, what about adding Mr. David to other categories like American Actor? Also, why not list all the awards he has won/been nominated for? He has some emmy heat for seinfeld check it out. And perhaps mention his wife?

--Mrfixter 17:20, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

i guess it wasn't obvious that i wasn't arguing in my last post to keep "small cult following", but rather to ditch both that and "fared poorly at the box office," as in my last suggested 'sour grapes' section, on which i don't think you commented specifically yet.

"fared poorly at the box office" might be provable, but it certainly is not without as deep an investigation requirement as "small cult following". am i faring poorly at the box office right now? i don't have a movie in theaters, and nobody's going to see this movie i don't have in theaters. box office mojo indicates that 'sour grapes' was released in a grand total of 28 theaters for one weekend. so, as with many arbitrary things at wikipedia, the question is, "where do you draw the line?" if nobody knew about "sour grapes" (and i, living in DC, certainly didn't), did it fare "poorly"? "poorly" is hardly a beacon of objectivity in this case; there are many questions that must be answered before you can state that factually. "was not a commercial success", however, passes muster, wouldn't you say? larry has stated in an interview (linked below) that it cost roughly 13 million, and box office mojo tells us that it made $123,104 in its small release. i'd say that qualifies as not a commercial success, which also leaves out worrying whether there's a cult following, what an arbitrary list of critics thought, etc.

are you okay with my proposed change to the sour grapes section (as in my previous post)? i have no desire to make it longer than that in the larry david article. i think it's clear enough from this interview that larry hoped to move from TV to film. that's an important larry detail given that he had a hit TV series about 4 years later (the notorious bumbler to success). along those lines, it might be worth adding in the curb section that larry wasn't known as an actor at all. it's damned unconventional what he did -- not that i need to tell you that. i think that's also something good to get into about him, in that he was apparently seen as dead wood when seinfeld started shooting (source, new seinfeld interviews w/him, seinfeld, michael richards). if that can be made encyclopedic, that would rock. against marked "TV expert" opposition, he followed what he knew was funny, and with the lovable seinfeld as his medium, put misanthropy on the pop TV map.

re curb your enthusiasm, i'm not quibbling over show v. series, though i guess series is better. i'm talking about the assertion that he started the series in 2000. although the usual phrase for "began work on" is just that, "started" may also be construed as "began work on". however, even that's not my main point. the pilot (intended as such or not) for 'curb' premiered in 1999. when they shot the series proper, they intentionally tried to duplicate the pilot (or whatever you want to call it). how about rephrasing so that none of these is an issue?

re SNL, my quibble is with the grammar more than anything. it basically says that he became something "from 1984 to 1985". if '84-'85 was the range of his employment, then he became an SNL writer in 1984, not an extended period -- unless one wants to argue that he once again "became" an SNL writer following that saturday night he quit after "marching in" to dick ebersol's office (only to come back to work the next week without saying anything). i doubt that's what's intended. i suggest a rephrase here as well, for accuracy. he was an SNL writer from x to x.

yes, i think larry should definitely be in all categories of his major work areas -- writing, acting, directing, producing, comedian, etc. As for awards, i don't have a big problem with somebody writing about it in the article, but such things to me are even less noteworthy (though arguably more readily encyclopedic) than "small cult following". i won't stand in your way. the wife? absolutely. she's "roundly considered" (uh oh!) to be a big influence on his PC politics BS. i do agree that we can make it a better article together. we can start by nailing down the 'sour grapes' section. is my last suggestion (last post) okay as written, or do you have changes?SaltyPig 02:47, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)