The Tommy Wiseau Show

(1482 votes, average 4.92 out of 5)

Old Vs New: War of the Worlds will appear at a later date, sorry for the inconvenience.

Doug's Official Facebook Page
Comments (1672)
  • Chase357
    avatar
    Freaking genius. I can't believe he's on some copyright crusade.
  • axlryder
    avatar
    Check out The room on wikipedia, looks like somebody made a little alteration to the article down at the bottom (something about john at the roommovie.com sueing your pants off for unauthorized use of jonny's image)
  • whatever42
    avatar
    I saw that. Someone also made another alteration at the bottom of the critical reception section of The Room wiki page about the Nostalgia Critic as well. ;)

    As for the video itself, very nice. This made me laugh a lot. I'm thinking that you might get a copyright claim for this too. I mean, it would make about as much sense as the first one.

    Don't these guys realize that if they tried to bring this to court, they would be laughed right out of the courtroom? Either way, here's hoping everything works out in the end Doug. :)
  • 0dd1
    avatar
    You also have got to see The Cinema Snob's response to this fiasco:
    http://thecinemasnob.com/ 2010/07/20/brad-and- jerrid-watch-the- room.aspx
  • Hippobu
    I bet they will remove this video in a few day as well. Though I must say that copyright is bull shit, absolute bull shit.

    I think the NC should make a Audio review like he did with Halloween III, instead of this.

    P.S: Don't you think some one would notice the fake info on Wikipedia ?
  • huey_pham_04
    you are aware of the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia right?
  • DeathsHead419  - Huh
    avatar
    [quote=huey_pham_04]you are aware of the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia right?[/quote]

    Might explain why it said his alternate name was "asshat" for several hours.
  • Slowking
    And why his age is 41 according to that page. If he is 41 I'm the emperor of china.

    But if he really got an award from harvard I'm never going to respect anybody who went to that university ever again.
  • saint23thomas  - possible
    avatar
    Based on the fact that he seems stoned during the whole movie, I'd say he might be 41. He may just look older because he's been abusing, well... probably everything-under-the- sun.
  • paperclipmouse
    they even locked the wiki page now because so many people "vandalized" it.
  • 0dd1
    avatar
    And they were totally in the right to do that. People, we're all upset, but be civil about this.
  • Metsmerized621
    avatar
    its only half locked - registered users such as myself can still vandalize it, despite the risk of IP and account ban...
  • IgetOnNoPlaneFool
    avatar
    why?
    rights to parody are Constitutional rights in USA (don't remember the case, but it was clearly stated by Suppreme court)
    (well, for example Maddox is quite free to include "Will Smith" and "dick" in one sentence, and not give a s**t about any complaints)

    as for the use of footage in the review .. I am not sure, but I can guess Dough's pretty safe with that one too.
  • KingKaor
    Huh.So THAT's what happened to The Room review. However, you can see it on other sites i presume. Like just a couple of weeks ago, I saw it on 4chan.So....yeah :music:
  • DaVince
    avatar
    I somehow doubt this particular video will be removed. They're not actually infringing copyright this time, right?

    As for the removal of the original video, frankly, I'm surprised they threatened to sue since That Guy even recommended people to watch it. Do people generally sue people who give positive reviews (though positive for the wrong reasons)?
  • kristycocopop
    avatar
    That was funny as well. Good job.
  • Jonathan M
    [b]Send your nasty hatemail here!

    john@theroommovie.com[/b]
  • Casandraelf  - heh heh heh
    that was actually me. i was too lazy to log in
  • jimboofical
    avatar
    You should check the Wikipedia page now, look under filmography.
  • Professor Schnöbelhosen
    avatar
    heh. I guess this is the fans way of saying; Okay! IT'S ON! :evil:
    (Much like NC just did with this video) :whistle:
  • SciFiGi  - It's on.
    avatar
    Absolutely. No one tells the NC what he can and cannot do. He is a god!...or a dude with a camera in America. Either way, he is unstoppable.
  • Jamey
    LOL! THe Wikipedia page got locked due to vandalism. xD
  • shadow946
    avatar
    spoiler alert

    John is Tommy Wiseau
  • Dustomega
    avatar
    Yeah I noticed that! I was like OMG not even after a full day they had it up!
  • botenmaru
    what a dush, this movie is one of the worst and this suckers use this copyright bullshit.
  • Gregdawg  - NOOOOOOOOOO!
    avatar
    From a recent interview:

    "All I eventually
    wrung from Wiseau was that he admired
    the work of Tennessee Williams,
    Orson Welles, Elizabeth Taylor,
    and James Dean, and that he had
    recently seen Twilight and was seeking
    investors for a vampire film he
    wanted to shoot in Austin, Texas."

    Tommy Wiseau as Edward...I don't think my mind can comprehend that. Though he does have horrible acting and ghost white skin...
  • CrazyChris576
    avatar
    It's not a copyright crusade, it's him finding some dumbass excuse to shoot down anyone that criticizes him in any way. Have you ever read his Twitter? He's clearly the most insecure person ever to exist. It's absolutely pathetic.

    Great video NC. You hit the nail on the head.
  • doggans
    avatar
    Wiseau's not on Twitter; all the Tommy Wiseau facebook and twitter accounts are impostors.

    Insecure? Perhaps, but he masks it with a large amount of pretentiousness and pomposity. Read or watch any interview with him, and he still treats his movie as a masterpiece.
  • Dreadwing
    avatar
    See, this is what NC was talking about when he said "Don't make us review you." Pure gold, all the way through.
  • The Angry Movie Dork
    avatar
    Damn, it's happening all over again, maybe Doug should make a website of his own so he won't have to deal with this copyright bullsh*t. Oh wait...
  • jurf-rokstar
    avatar
    What he need is a non third-party video player. But I doubt anybody he know has knowledge of how to make one.
  • DaVince
    avatar
    You mean you doubt he has the bandwidth. It'd cost gigabytes per day if he were to host all videos himself, I'm sure. You don't need to make a player, there are plenty around (like jwplayer).
  • AndrewDeLong
    avatar
    Mr. Dork....

    This is the first time I, or anyone else, has 100% agreed with you, even if you were joking.

    But what you meant to say was, "get his own video player"....in either case...wow, you weren't shunned out this time. :0
  • Nevet1212
    avatar
    I am sure that, as you call him, Mr. Dork was joking about how the Nostalgia critic had trouble on youtube with copyright, so he made his own site, he is suggesting it now becuase he is dealing with the same type of stuff, that is why at the end he said "oh wait..." you know, saying: you already did that.
  • The Angry Movie Dork
    avatar
    Blip.tv is getting pretty popular and used and while they seem to respect the fair use clause more then something like Youtube, I don't think it's so much them, I think it's just this website has turned into a pretty big company, a bussiness like Youtube and when companies start personally asking them to remove certain content, they have to stay proffesional about it(that would be funny if they instead of taking the video down gave them the middle finger), though I agree they should use something other then Blip, maybe they'll find interest in some of these links?

    http:// www.brightcove.com/

    http:// www.giantrealm.com/

    http:// www.joomlaholic.com/

    http:// hwdmediashare.co.uk/ hwdvideoshare

    Their last option would be to build an entire video platform from scratch(which I have no clue how to do). But I'm sure they'll just move along, one video getting taken down won't hurt them, it was only a matter of time as the site grew that this would happen. I mean it's one review out of 100+ NC reviews? This doesn't happen often and it probably won't happen again.

    Though I think they should consider using any of those video platforms above, their more secure and alot of people seem to have trouble with this blip.tv player, especially this new one theyv'e integrated.
  • Dorth
    avatar
    This might be useful (from Blip.tv)
    C. Procedure to Supply a Counter-Notice to the Designated Agent:

    If the user believes that the material that was removed or to which access was disabled is either not infringing, or the user believes that it has the right to post and use such material from the copyright owner, the copyright owner's agent, or pursuant to the law, the user must send a counter-notice containing the following information, in English, to the Designated Agent listed below:

    1. A physical or electronic signature of the user;
    2. Identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or disabled;
    3. A statement that the user has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or a misidentification of the material; and
    4. User's name, address, telephone number, and, if available, e-mail address and a statement that such person or entity consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal Court for the judicial district in which the user's address is located, or if the user's address is located outside the United States, for any judicial district in which blip.tv is located, and that such person or entity will accept service of process from the person who provided notification of the alleged infringement.

    If a counter-notice is received by the Designated Agent, blip.tv may send a copy of the counter-notice to the original complaining party informing that person that it may replace the removed material or cease disabling it in 10 business days. Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the user, the removed material may be replaced or access to it restored in 10 to 14 business days after receipt of the counter-notice, at blip.tv's discretion.
  • z90Aluysion09z
    avatar
    Because this did happen though, it shows it doesn't matter if it's legal or not for Doug to review using clips. In reality, probably any studio could sue him if they wanted, whether he's protected or not. Money talks and because the companies do only care about being professional and the money. I don't think this is even a legal thing anymore. It's about Tommy's ego and how much cash he's willing to burn to "keep his good name" If this were to happen again, then clauses and copy rights don't matter from either end of the spectrum. Who ever has the most influence and power over the companies showing the product wins. That and who ever can come up with the most official sounding legal jargon, which is of course utter BS and everyone knows it.
  • Dorth
    avatar
    Not really. Filling a false DMCA is an act of perjury and can be punished by up to 5 years in jails + costs of attorney + punishing amount. Not really something to cough at. Even big studios couldn't force an attorney to fill one up if the attorney risks 5 years in jail if he loses.
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    Perhaps his team is secretly in cohoots with the RIAA. They'll sue the skin of your granny if the money will add to their yearly earnings, & give 20 cents to the artists so they don't feel left out.
  • astralman  - LOOK!
    Send your feelings to theroom@theroommovie.com
  • EricTheCoolDude
    avatar
    I e-mailed John and this is what happened:

    My first E-mail (I put "Screenings in Sweden" as the subject line to be sure he would click it):

    From: Eric Bradford
    Subject: Screenings in Sweden?
    To: theroom@theroommovie.com, john@theroommovie.com
    Date: Tuesday, July 20, 2010, 6:24 PM


    Oh hi, John from The Room Movie Dot Com.
    How are you doing? Probably angry because of all the hate-mail you're getting.
    I have the solution!
    Your movie would make much more money if the review was still up, because in the end of it, the Nostalgia Critic tells the viewers to actually watch the movie! You'd get much more people at the screenings that way.
    I highly recommend that you allow the Nostalgia Critic to keep his review, or you will pay.. You will pay.

    Eric Bradford
    http:// ericsmusicandstuff.com

    [b]His reply:[/b]

    2010/7/21 The Room

    Hi Eric:

    Thank you for your E-Mail but the clips of "The Room" has been alter. It is not the issue what someone is saying about it but you can't just alter someone original work. He or they should ask for a permission to use the clips and we will give them the best quality possible; another issues are that you can't just put other images other someone work because you feel like it; you have to ask for a permission first.

    How you will fill that someone will alter your work and misleading other people about it?

    Thank you for your kind words.

    Sincerely,
    John

    [b]So, I replied:[/b]

    Hello, John from theroommovie.com! Thanks for answering.

    Well, I'm sure Doug would enjoy having the highest quality possible, but how did he alter the clips? Oh, sure, he added voice-overs and comments but that's just his style of reviewing! He has done over 150 reviews this way, and I don't see why yours would be an exception. He has become a very popular internet phenomenon, you see, and the alterations in question will not mislead any fans of his as most people on the site are very familiar with the Nostalgia Critic style of reviewing.

    Also, the fact is that you don't need permission to use images from a movie when it's a review.

    Have a nice day, John from theroommovie.com!


    Eric Bradford
    http:// ericsmusicandstuff.com
    http://www.youtube.com/ Evilhamster95

    [b]He hasn't replied to that yet, but we'll see.[/b]
  • Real_Kurvos
    avatar
    How cute... that dude pretends you can't use clips from movies for a review. Adorable.
  • Shoryuken
    I think you miss the point of the exchange: he just wanted permission, and they would have let him use the footage.
  • ZeldaQueen
    But that's the thing - it's fair use. You don't [i]need[/i] permission. I'm fairly certain that Siskle and Ebert didn't get permission for every review they did. Yes it would be nice, but you don't HAVE to. And that's what this John fellow claims - that one cannot do a review without asking permission.

    In short, it's a courtesy not a necessity and they really have no right to throw a snit fit like that.
  • Shoryuken
    Actuallllly, there is a reason why there were "Courtesy of 20th Century Fox" or "Courtesy of _______" put on clips used on the news or on review shows like Siskel and Ebert. That means they got permission.
  • atypicaloracle
    avatar
    [i]Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.[/i]

    Or if you prefer, you can read Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 at [url]http:// www.law.cornell.edu/ uscode/17/107.html[/url]. It might be relevant.
  • matt.recneps
    avatar
    [quote]another issues are that you can't just put other images other someone work because you feel like it; you have to ask for a permission first.[/quote]

    Aha! So the real issue was that Doug covered up Wiseau's ass. Glad we cleared that up.

    And here I was so sure that they had the reviews removed because they thought they might be harmful to Tommy Wiseau's career since "The House That Drips Blood on Alex" is coming up. Little do they realize that the most harmful thing to Tommy Wiseau's career is [i]Tommy Wiseau's career.[/i]
  • lady linkara
    r u saying ur responsabul for this or is it sarcasaum? if u are sereus im a littil suprised that people arent extremly pist off at u
  • iaro
    avatar
    Unless you changed the spelling of the reply, methinks that this 'John' guy is not who he says he is... Unless he types the way Wiseau speaks.
  • dameon grey
    unfortunately enough he actually is who he says he is. If you read Harper's magazine it tells the reader in an article about "The Room" it has the same John who has that weird way of spelling asking the writer about when/ where to interview Wiseau it's odd.
  • EricTheCoolDude
    avatar
    Yep, pretty sure it's Wiseau, lol..

    I didn't alter anything.
  • Semudara
    avatar
    Well done, good civil exchange. Please do be sure to add an edit if he does respond, I'd like to see what he has to say to that.
  • freakofcoaster
    It doesn't even matter if that's his style of reviewing, the fair use clause covers satire and parody. :whistle:.
  • Shoryuken
    Dude... you can't post private correspondence in a public place.
  • DaVince
    avatar
    Videos *can* be altered as works of parody, as far as I'm aware. Which is exactly what the Nostalgia Critic is doing.
  • Akane  - Tommy Wiseau just shoot himself in the foot
    avatar
    I think that Tommy Wiseau just shoot himself in the foot and made a fool of himslef. Oh well, his choice. Good to know what kind of person he is.
  • KingGramJohnson  - This Angers Me
    avatar
    This is quite upsetting. "The Room" review was, by far, one of Doug's best reviews. But no, one of Wiseau's guys has to throw a hissy fit about it. It's obviously meant for comedy, and the NC even said to see it! He told us to see it. I don't know about you, but I put it on my NetFlix list because of this review! Crazy!

    Well, at least we can still watch it here:
    http://vodpod.com/watch/ 4018770-nostalgia-critic- the-room
  • Thammuz
    avatar
    Thank you so much for that, i wanted to save it so i'll be able to watch it even if it never gets up again. Thank you.
  • JollySam
    Hey KingGramJohnson,

    Thanks alot for posting that alternate link. I saw the review before it got taken down, but its good to still be able to watch it.

    We beat the nazis in the war, and we can't let them strut around now either.

    Thanks,
    JollySam
  • montyxrizzo
    avatar
    I guess he didn't know that Doug has an army of devoted fans... more than can be said for the room movie..... :evil:
  • orwellianson  - !!!
    avatar
    [size=medium][b] :angry:
    With all these superficial lawsuits you would think Tommy and Johnny are or once have been Scientologists. Their infantile claims and ludicrous statements paint them as such. Closed minded, incompetent and full of crap. Giving an interview or even mentioning Tommy Wiseau's name offers undeserved credibility. The man is a hack and a complete insult to filmmakers everywhere.[/b]
    [/size]
  • VictimOfThe90s
    Critic totally forgotten to dub all the Wiseau scenes.
  • Jimin3D
    If they sue Doug I will sue them to for bad taste and killing my dog to. =D
  • mofi
    avatar
    nice one, keep em coming nc ^^
  • Death the Kid
    avatar
    Wow.

    Very interesting indeed.

    And sad too. I wanted to show my brothers that review too. lol Shame. Good impression of the guy, huh.

    BTW, how did the money taste? O_O I didn't think you'd actually put that in your mouth. LOL Gave me a good chuckle. xD
  • BenjaminBupkus
    avatar
    Wait, he made a copyright claim against the Critic, but not against all the people who put up clips of his movie on Youtube?

    It really does sound like he just didn't want to be criticized...
  • iaro
    avatar
    See, I don't understand- he must be used to criticism. He's made the worst movie of all time- people have heckled his movie while he was in the theater! So why can't he take shit from a couple internet reviewers?
  • QueensNYC2021
    I know, right? I'm sure in high school, Wiseau was the guy who hanged out with the popular kids, and when he wasn't with them they laughed and laughed at him. But he was in happy-wappy-dopeland thinking he was a king.

    And it does confuse me that many clips of the movie are on Youtube, with a good amount of hits, and they haven't been taken down. Youtube videos are always getting slammed with copyright claims, but not from this little one man company. But god forbid, someone on an independent yet popular site makes a review on it. Doug is totally right about giving the movie free promotion to an audience whose never seen it. I only knew of it from an article in Entertainment magazine. I wonder how much they had to pay to use a picture of Wiseau.
    I can just see him having his "rawr-rawr" tantrum after watching this, knowing that Doug clearly is the better and more credible man.
  • MissAshley
    avatar
    I'm amused by how the studio took action only after Doug's work, as opposed to Lupa's or any other critic on the web. It reminds me of the Muhammad in South Park thing. Comedy Central had no problem showing his image in the past, but once the issue gained national attention (and thinly veiled threats of violence were made) they decided to no longer do so.
  • Getsuga Tensho  - Actually.....
    Actually, a lot of the people who reuploaded this video to Youtube had them taken down. Wiseau is going around youtube as well claiming copyright on any reposts of the review he sees, it's just fortunate enough that youtube users are persistant and keep reuploading the review faster than he can get it taken down. :P

    He might be proud of making a film but if you make a film you can't just choose to accept one part of being in the industry, you have to accept all the criticism that comes along with it. If he can't deal with negative reviews then he shouldn't release bad films(revising and reiterating the script might help as well as getting some acting lessons) and claim false copyright.

    All he's done is give himself an even worse reputation and gathered a rather angry army of people(that's you lot :P).
  • uknownada
    Uploaded by the guy who keeps uploading Doug's videos without his permission and says to "support the site", which is obviously what he isn't doing considering the fact that many people in the TGWTG team asked him to stop?

    Why am I replying to a comment from July?
  • GuitarKid
    Copyright? From Tommy fucking Wiseau!? Does he seriously think his shit is worth protecting?
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    We live in a country where you can be sued for anything, any time, by anyone. It may be too frivilous to make it to court, but they still try.

    Hmm, I wonder if a blogger on this site might review America's Top 11 Most Frivilous Lawsuits.
  • Lodeman AKA LARUCUS
    avatar
    Dear tommy wiseau, i hate your stinking guts, you make me vomit, you are the scum between my toes, love lodeman!!
  • Mizu Takishima
    avatar
    Did you just make a little rascals reference? You sir, are awesome :D
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    According to either Rocko's Modern Life or Ren & Stimpy, you can make a mighty tasty tea with that toe jam. :X
  • Lo-taku
    avatar
    Christ, stop the nostagia critic and we'll all feel nostalgic of the nostalgia critic
  • Novanator
    avatar
    Wow. For someone who claims The Room was supposed to be a comedy, he clearly doesn't have a very good sense of humor.

    What a prick. Hope everything works out in the end.
  • dreaminon
    This is hilarious, though wish the room review was still up
  • EvetscipE
    He's seriously gone on a copyright rampage?!...what a fucking butthurt asshole
  • moviemaster8510
    avatar
    tommy wiseau is like little chicken: cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
  • RawJah
    avatar
    Great Video and the right way to handle this "problem".. To quote the Nerd:

    "What were they thinking?"

    greetz from germany

    roger
  • Bassmen
    nice acting :D i wonder how this copyright thing will end :D
  • JustinT
    LOL!!

    Doug, you rock sir! This was not only a nice response to those douchebag's making you take the review down but a great way to make fun of Wiseau. It was hilarious!

  • RestamSalucard
    Wait, does this mean no Old vs. New this week?
  • KevinSutton
    Critic.... you seem upset about something. :whistle:

    I am myself a little confused about fair use. Does fair use for reviews actually cover the reuse of footage?
  • squigscarmichael
    avatar
    § 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

    Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

    (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

    (2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

    (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

    (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

    http://www.copyright.gov/ title17/92chap1.html#107
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    How about translating all of that into english for those of use who aren't studying law?
  • DeathsHead419  - Well...
    avatar
    Technically this website stands to make a profit off of the review and thus clips of the movie in question. So, I suppose the argument could be made, that since they might make money off of the images taken from the "film" in question it violates fair use.

    I'm not sure if that's the case that was made, I am not an expert by any stretch, but that's my best guess as to what happened. The review contained futage and was made for profit and theroommovie.com cried foul. Of course, that raises the whole "Free Publicity" angle.
  • Dragunslayer
    I don't think that's quite it. Yes the site can make a profit off it but the same could really be said of any site, magazine, or other media that does reviews.

    The law as it's stated there allows for footage to be used if it's used for a review, news, education, research, or a scholarship.

    The points below the main part are basically this
    1: What's it being used for?
    2: What kind of media does the copyrighted material fall under
    3: How much of it is used
    4: What effect will this use have on the material
  • AndrewDeLong
    avatar
    Actually, since the NC uses Blip as a host (which is where the profit actually comes from), there is a way to post the video without making one cent off it. You simply need to place a certain rating on the video, denoting that there is unlicensed copyrighted material in it. The site should then automatically turn off the revenue sharing for that particular video.
  • JackitK
    avatar
    Actually there's an option while you're uploading a video to turn off all advertising. If you just do that, there's no profit being made off the video I believe.
  • DucaleEfston
    avatar
    Ahaha yes! I can't believe they took the video off your site :( I had to go watch it on youTube instead.
    Best of luck in the copyright crusade, hope you win!
    And perhaps give us the email of this man so we can send many a nasty emails :)

    EDIT: theroom@theroommovie.com The email to complain to "John" at the room.com
  • Razilynn
    avatar
    Sent email.

    Can't believe Tommy Wiseau has nothing else to do but this.

    Kick his a$$ NC!
  • dennett316
    avatar
    Thanks for the email address, a copy of the email I sent them.....

    [b][i]Oh Hi John

    I am just writing today to express my disappointment in the fact that you guys have decided to try to sue a person
    who has MUCH more talent than the egotistical director of the cult "classic" The Room, The Nostalgia Critic.
    It seems you have done this with no knowledge of Fair Use and how it pertains to reviews of movies, and despite the fact
    that though he criticised the movie (deservedly so as it's the ultimate definition of ego-maniacal vanity project, and a waste of $7 million dollars)
    he recommended it be seen by all of his viewers.

    I find it laughable that you seek damages in order to protect the reputation of a movie which is only known at all because it is so terribly acted, directed and shot.
    The Critic gave you free publicity... I simply don't see the problem beyond the fact that Mr Wiseau cannot stand the fact that his epic vision is being ridiculed, I'm sure this must be TEARING HIM APAHT!!!!

    He has not financially harmed you, quite the opposite in fact as several people have stated they have purchased the movie purely to show it to their friends who cannot
    believe a film so bad exists.
    In short John, you are a fool. Mr Wiseau is a fool (as if that weren't apparent already by his awful movie that serves only to massage a MASSIVELY inflated ego).
    And you have done far greater harm to your image than any reviewer ever could. Before Mr Wiseau had an aura of the Ed Wood about him - he's terrible, but he has a kind of weird charisma that
    got you past that fact - now I'm afraid he and you must go down as arrogant, childish, spiteful and utterly pathetic in your cynical idiocy.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to toss around a football in my best tuxedo for absolutely no reason....I HATE THIS WOOORLD!![/i][/b]
  • leon27  - Well done, man!
    avatar
    Good job, man. Very well said. I want to send 'em an e-mail too. Can you tell me the adress?? Thanks!
  • brizzzyredhead
    avatar
    You guys have probably all figured this out, but "John" IS Tommy Wiseau. He all but admitted it in next month's Harper's Bazaar interview.

    http:// www.willdendis.com/ The_Room_Harpers.pdf

    To tell you the truth, I felt a bit bad for him when I read the article (I mean, come on, the guy truly on some level believes that he has "dozens of friends", and they're all "fans" who've gathered to laugh AT him, not WITH him). But after this NC fiasco...fuck him. I hope you guys win the lawsuit and he has to pay through the nose for wasting your time and energy like that.
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    I'm not taking my chances emailing them. They might sue NC, claiming that he TOLD us to "attack" them & that the threatening & trollish letters don't qualify as a peaceful protest, or something like that.

    I do NOT trust businesses in this country to not sue if they think they can win.
  • Fondell  - Email!!!
    You can always claim whatever you want, but in the end it's the truth that matters and the truth is that Doug never did encouraged anyone to send hate mails. He assumed (accurately I might add, as we have all seen in many of the comments above) that people would send hate mails and therefore used it in this video.

    Here's my email:

    "Hi.

    I think your parents were either inbred or you got dropped on your head as an infant to not only act in (horribly I might add), direct and write such an atrocious movie as "The Room", but to claim copyright infringement on a satirical review. Not only was the review funny, it is also protected by the same laws that you claimed it violated. The only reason it got deleted was because the administrators of the site probably didn't know enough about copyright law.

    Now that I think of it I should probably have you sued for bodily damage (I almost needed eye surgery) and mental anguish due to watching "The Room".

    You sir, are a total and utter fuck-up and the internet will always prevail. That I can guarantee you.


    All the best from sweden,

    Andreas."
  • LikaLaruku
    avatar
    I suppose this very post could be proof that he did not outright provokes us & seeing as there's another 10 pages of responces every 6 hours, their lawyers would have fun going through all the pages looking to see if the critic might have left a provoking responce to a user, which he never does.

    I prefur to be completely polite in letters as anger prevokes anger rather than favors, linincy, & forgiveness.
  • z90Aluysion09z
    avatar
    Agreed, if they even had the power to take down his independent non-profit (it's not direct, we don't pay to watch these reviews) then they certainty have the power to sue, whether they win or not almost doesn't matter. If they think it's in their interest, they'll sue. As much as I hope NC would win this one out, I have to say I have no faith in the legal system on copy rights It's playing with fire and from what I understand on reading what was posted on the fair rights, the only thing allowed is for education or news and not much else. And as per the law, they're are probably loopholes up the wazoo some lawyer will find to make the original copy right win. Fair use seems to be to make it seem fair, but it really just depends if the studio cares enough or not for something to be reviewed. Tommy is being stupid regardless though. He's getting free publicity, I didn't even know of this movie till I saw the review somewhere else before it was taken down. Regardless of that though, I'm sorry to say i don't think Doug would win if he got in a legal battle over this. I'd just stay away, but maybe, because it's such a small studio with just one ego inflated guy, he might. But also take into account the fact that now this is a cult in a way. People are now buying and renting his movie because it is awful, unbelievably so ... Perhaps that's just what he wanted. Maybe he's seeing what he could get away with. A lot of it seemed almost purposefully stupid, especially the lines of the girl "is he dead?" Seriously? If anything, I think Tommy was making fun of other movies perhaps, hence why it had usual elements of others, such as drama, endless talking, sex scenes, drug abuse, suicide, cheating, mom dieing of disease and talking with daughter, being tough grandma type... all issues other movies sometimes cover, but all in one movie and done horribly. He also gave it a stupid name "The room" I'm really starting to think he did this movie to make fun of others. It's a little too stupid to not be done on purpose ....
  • Deltora
    Awesome!
    More creative than my email. But together we can flood the shit out of his inbox!
  • RocketGruntKenny
    Name-calling in a letter to somebody will just get you ignored.
  • AndrewDeLong
    avatar
    A copy of my letter (a bit more on the informative side for Mr. Wiseau...err...I mean "John":

    "Oh, hi! John from the room movie dot com.

    How's it going? Probably not that great right now because of all the angry emails about the Nostalgia Critic's review of "the room" being taken down because you guys claimed copyright infringement.

    Well, I'm here to help!

    Firstly, you should know that he (the Nostalgia Critic) does not need to ask for your permission, nor does he need to pay you any sort of fees, because he reviewed your movie. It's covered under fair use, which I quote here:


    "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

    This means that he does not need any legal or moral clearance from you in order to review "The Room."

    Now, to resolve all of this hate mail I'm sure you're getting, you are truly better off not lodging any copyright claims against him, because, if this were to go to court, you would most surely loose any legal battle, not to mention money.

    But that aside, letting him keep the review up is actually good business for YOU! Yes, it is! For, you see, he actually tells people to go watch the movie! This is what you would call a free advertisement!

    Now, you can do what you want, but the Nostalgia Critic is most likely going to dispute your copyright claims, in which case you will loose, according to the "fair use" clause I provided you above.

    Try not to take anything I say personally, but it seems that your actions are not going to bode well for you, should you continue to pursue this copyright claim on something that is so clearly exempt from it.

    Sincerely,

    Andrew"
  • SimonDrown
    After reading this i decided to throw my hat into the ring and send my own email:

    I and my colleagues are young independant film-makers and run our own site called ScreamerPictures.webs.com , so we sympathise with how hard it can be to make movies (Hell, it took us 2 Years to make a 5 minute short film!!!). The point is that we have noticed this Copyright Issue with TGWTG.com, and would like to state our thoughts on the matter;

    After various interviews with site-members on the subject, it seems they all are making valid points that you arent listening to, so hear to help me is Dr. Timmothy Maconich from the school for the deaf (Great to be hear) . NC's reviews are protected under fair use (THEY'RE PROTECTED UNDER FAIR USE!!!!!!!!!)...

    If this goes to court you will be laughed out of the courtroom, which will make your site very unpopular, (YOU WILL BE LAUGHED AT BY THE JUDGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    If you decide not to listen, I will rally members of TGWTG.com to make their own video reviews, and as the site has millions of members, you wont ever be able to get them all removed (WE WILL MAKE OUR VIDEO REVIEWS, SO LAY OFF!!!!!!!!)

    As a film-maker I know how it feels to be critised, and as someone who's spent his childhood being beaten to a pulp by classmates and having rocks thrown at me, I must say you need to take it in stride. If you take it out on others for making small comments, you will only become a magnet of hatred and disdain, (MAN UP YOU WUSSY!!!!!!!!!!!!)

    The fact is, their are always gonna be people who hate your work, its how we learn from our mistakes, and to quote Bennet The Sage "Life isnt just about feeling good, its about taking the good with the bad, thats what makes the good things in life all the more speciel" Wise words indeed, (LEARN FROM YOUR MISTAKES!!!!!!!!!)

    I hope that if you DO decide to stop being over-zealous and controlling, you'll let the site keep its review and leave the world of that guy with the glasses in peace (ADDAKA, ADDAKA, ADDAKA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)


    As a fellow film-maker, I urge you to be fair and remember, How did YOU feel when your were making films in the early days, it was difficult and we all need to start somewhere, so remember that...
  • AndrewDeLong
    avatar
    :snicker: ........ XD XD XD

    That is pure...fucking...genius:! : :!: :!:
  • Safuga
    avatar
    I suspected something like this when the review went missing :/
  • EraTomo
    Wow. Well, I [i]was[/i] going to see The Room with my friends, but what's the point of it now?
    Way to trick yourselves out of money, gaiz.

    Keep doing good, NC.

    (Sent Email)
  • Legolas_Katarn  - Almost happy this happened
    avatar
    This was just as funny as the review

    Even so....let's get to writing all of that hate mail.
  • morius
    "is beautiful, huh? Hahaha"
  • acolonelofcorn
    avatar
    What a douchebag he is. . . although that much was obvious from the movie.

    So was anyone really surprised? :D
  • Lothar Hex
    Absolutely brilliant. I don't understand the logic of the move at all.
  • xtremegz
    avatar
    I hope those were new or fake bills you were eating...You don't even know who touched them...maybe Even Tommy Wiseau touched them :X
  • beelow
    that was... HILARIOUS :woohoo:
  • Starry4ever
    They actually bothered to claim copyright infringement for the room?? anyway, I loved your acting in this :D
  • ScarSymmitry
    lol "what a story Mark"

    i didn't know your review was claimed copyright
  • LEDANG
    Haha. Damn THE ROOM suck. Even the name THE ROOM doestn have anything to do with the movie. No story, bad acting and the movie is boring as hell.
    Next time Review Pinchcliffe grand prix!
  • EricTheCoolDude
    avatar
    Well, most of the movie is in one room, the one with the red walls. I'm pretty sure that's The Room.
  • Osminium  - Pinchcliffe Grand Prix...
    ...is one of favorite movies of all time, I'm Norwegian btw.
  • Jensonb
    avatar
    You know, that's been bugging me too. Why the heck is it called The Room? There is no particular room of any significance. It's not like they spend the whole movie in one room, or anything even like that. Does it refer to the room he trashes and then eats the bullet in? Is it the room where they all seem to bone or instigate boning? WHAT IS THE ROOM!?
  • Blank139
    avatar
    the room is were they should have kept the movie to be seen by the public
  • Margaritas21
    avatar
    That was truly one of the most awesome reviews I'd seen in a long time!!! Your response is so incredibly classy!!!! :D Continue being awesome!!!
  • Gold_Ultima
    That's some complete and utter bullshit right there.... As a Canadian it's my duty to write them a letter in stereotypical fashion to show my displeasure with how much they are acting like cock monkeys.
  • areoborg
    avatar
    First rule about The Room: Never talk about The Room!
  • DarkProphet94
    avatar
    um....you know that you can find the review on Youtube, right? just sayin, it's not [u]completely[/u] gone
  • Smael123  - Smael123
    Yeah but its hard to find a high quality one.
  • dragonfly_dust
    avatar
    Why bother with this crap? Don't those Room idiots realize a judge will throw this out as soon as they open their mouths?!
  • The Average Guy
    They'll obviously sue the judge then. :D
  • psycher7
    Ah yes, the Jack Thompson defense. And we all know how well THAT went...I really hope they go for it!
  • Lenrex
    I was going to go out and by the DVD of The Room to celebrate it's crappiness with the critics review in mind before this all went down - not now - Wiseau is not going to get one dime of my $$$ after this - so see Wiseau Films you are costing yourself $$$ pretty soon you guys are going to run out of money to eat.

    Awesome vid as always Rob - continue to fight the good fight!!

    Favorite quote: "I am a national treasure, I just don't know what nationality I am" - definatley classic
  • chrisjsug630  - Empty Threats
    While I admire your commitment to the Critic and agree that Wiseau really is a tool for threatening a violation of the Copyright Act, mere threats that people "were going to see The Room" or "I was going to buy" only bolster Mr. Wiseau's argument that damage will be and was done to his movie by the review

    To put it in five-year old terms, you didn't buy the movie so Mr. Wiseau didn't receive any economic benefit. Now you aren't going to buy the movie (which may or may not be true) but in any court proceeding such hypotheticals aren't enough to show that the Critic's review garnered Mr. Wiseau any free publiciity or conveyed a benefit. In other words, its just conjecture that the Critic did any good which would be hard to rebut considering now all of the Critic's fans plan to boycott the movie. In other words, Mr. Wiseau wins.
  • RocketGruntKenny
    And really, to actually do something like this would make Doug look childish, and would further bolster Mr. Wiseau's argument. Instead of handling it quietly and maturely, Doug is making things worse for not only himself, but for the business of TGWTG.

    To quote an anonymous person:

    "The thing that get's the critic in trouble is the insinuation that they won't do anything. I do agree with NC, but I don't think that he is on the right side of the issue here. the MPAA is going to back Wiseau, and that is going to cause trouble for Blip.tv users everywhere. Does Doug not see what he is doing, it's not just about him but posters all over the web, being challenged by this. Now Yourube has stricter guidelines, waht about blip? Waht about my desire to use "free rights" publicity clauses? What about his site? If this causes a backlash, he's back to illustrating textbooks or whatever he did before the site made enough money. Not to mention, this is his job now. not just some jokes for fun anymore, he has to think about protecting his business too. I'm surprised Mike Michaud hasn't said anything to him about the wisdom of his decisions in this matter. Also, I think they set up a fake Tommy Wiseau Twitter, if not just followiing one, and with that posted on the site, Libel, Slander, Infringement, name and likeness, fraud... Oh man, but this could be entertaining too. i just hope he doesn't set fire to his house of straws.

    Read more: http:// www.cheshirecatstudios.co m/forum/videos/tgwtg- that-guy-with-the- glasses-t334- 300.html#p6908#ixzz0uM2ib pMu "

    Doug's decision to act like a child could get blip.tv into a shitload of trouble, and make it start cracking down on its users. The whole firestorm of fanboys sending them angry emails and calling him a tool also isn't helping... because that's called slander, and you could get in trouble for that.
  • dennett316
    avatar
    Surely it's only slander if it isn't true? Play a few clips from the movie and any slander case would be instantly dismissed.

    Plus, Critic never actually told us to email them, he pointed out a website that has been available for some considerable time to everyone in the world...if I choose to mail him and call him an egotistical idiot with ambition beyond his meagre abilities, that's my right.

    Frankly I'd think Mr Wiseau would be used to humiliation by now.
  • Shoryuken
    But what if the slander is true? What then? Plus RocketGrunt said nothing about Doug telling the fanboys to send hate mail:

    "The whole firestorm of fanboys sending them angry emails and calling him a tool also isn't helping... because that's called slander, and you could get in trouble for that."
  • Fondell  - blip.tv
    Who cares about blip.tv? It's not like people have to use them to upload movies :S
  • Shoryuken
    Dude, a lot of people post their own TV shows and reviews on blip.tv - [b][i]A majority of the contributors to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses post their content on blip.tv.[/i][/b] Are you saying that you don't care if blip.tv cracks down, and suddenly most of the content on TGWTG has to be taken down?
  • Fondell
    I don't care if blip.tv goes down. There's other sites to upload material on. Would probably take a little bit more time to upload all the videos again, but blip.tv is still far from necessary. The world won't end just because they disappear. The best thing for any serious uploader to do is to buy a server and host all the files privately. If you don't have that option, then you can just rent a server in a server hall with a dedicated connection from a provider and store everything there. It's not very expensive and that way no one can be blamed for copyright infringement on false grounds like Doug was in this case.
  • Liberate
    avatar
    You talk as if it were an easy and cheap way to do, when in reality it's not.
  • Fondell
    With that kind of society and system as the one in the US, it wouldn't surprise me if the prizes are outrageous.
  • Shoryuken
    Not everybody can do that though, dude.
  • Fondell
    Yes... They actually can...
  • Lëzen
    Sorry, but I don't find credible the comments of an "anonymous person" who can't even use a damn spell check.

    And I find even [i]less[/i] credible the guy who quotes the comments of said person to support his own argument.

    I see the terms slander, libel, fraud etc. being thrown around here. But do any of you even know what they mean?

    [quote]The whole firestorm of fanboys sending them angry emails and calling him a tool also isn't helping... because that's called slander, and you could get in trouble for that.[/quote]
    ...Apparently not.

    In simplest terms, slander denotes the use of [b]false[/b] statements that are declared to be factual, usually with malicious intent.

    For one thing, how does a bunch of pissed off NC fans calling this John guy a "tool" qualify as slander? I'd hate to see a world where someone can sue you for something as trifling as name-calling. Last I checked, people are still allowed to express opinions, even negative ones. So, John, if you're reading this post - which you just might be, considering you're probably the type to search through pages and pages of comments for whatever he can use to damage Doug's case - you're a douche. A really big one, at that.

    For another thing, this here video doesn't even qualify as slander. It's merely an expression of criticism. All it does is slam the unfounded, groundless accusations of copyright infringement by Wiseau's company. Sure, it uses the likenesses of Wiseau and John in a parodic manner, but do you ever see South Park getting in trouble for using the likeness of celebrities to criticize their actions? What about Family Guy and Robot Chicken, which habitually do the same thing? It may be "childish," but so, too, is Wiseau's inability to handle criticism of the shitfest that was The Room.

    Please do a little bit of research next time before you go blasting Doug's (rather justified) actions.
  • Elphaba645
    avatar
    I totally agree. I went to a bit of law school, and I know this can't be used against Doug.
  • AndrewDeLong  - @ RocketGruntKenny
    avatar
    Actually, no, it wont get him in trouble. Insofar as this sketch here is concerned, it can be called a multitude of legal things, parody or satire being among them.

    If Doug got in trouble for this, then by all means the past 35 years of Saturday Night Live should be considered retroactively illegal.

    Point is, a reaction like the one Doug posted here is no more damaging to Wiseau's image and career, than Wiseau's own image and career.

    No judge in his right mind would or COULD legally condemn a parody like this, as for the review itself, it is protected by the fair use clause.

    If this went to court, Blip and its users could only come out more protected than before.

    Basically, quit the nay-saying and apply some logic to your worries. Then they won't be worries anymore. ;)
  • RocketGruntKenny
    Look, I'm not for or against either side, but it's just my opinion that in the face of a lawsuit, regardless of if Wiseau has a hope of winning or not, a parody in the midst of a possible lawsuit isn't the smartest thing to do. Maybe further down the line when Doug has quietly resolved this issue with Wiseau could he post this video, then I wouldn't have an issue with it, but posting a parody of somebody who is threatening to sue you is, in my opinion, playing with fire.
  • Elphaba645
    avatar
    Maybe it wasn't the smartest, but it was damn funny.
  • Quantum Wolf
    avatar
    We just need one of the gamers here like Angry Joe or Spoony to do a mockery of Jack Thompson then it's complete.

    U R tearing me apart John from theroommovie.com!

    But does this mean no War of the Worlds vid this week? :unsure:
  • gabman1993  - What's going on with the site
    Hi NC
    I think the site may have an internet error or something because many vids, such as old reviews aren't playing...

    Can you fix that plz?

    Also are you doing the war of the worlds vid this week?

    P.S.- Great job on the vid, hope you win the sue
  • Elphaba645
    avatar
    Yeah I can't watch the old vids either. Really annoying.
  • DailyFriend
    avatar
    GENIUS :P

    i bet they wil :whistle:
Only registered users can write comments!

Follow us on:

Latest Videos

Linkara: US-1 #4

Watch Video

Sage: Fatal Fury Double Impact

Watch Video

Vangelus: Cyberbots Blodia

Watch Video

Dena: Abadox Commentary

Watch Video

Adventure Time: The Prince Who

Watch Video

BB: Stan Lee's Top 10 Awesome

Watch Video

Brad: Anime Midwest Panel

Watch Video

Lupa: BW - We Need a Vacation

Watch Video

Lotus: Galerians Parts 3-4

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Furniture & Meat

Watch Video

Nash: Serial Pooper

Watch Video

Smarty: DAH - ChaosD1

Watch Video

Shaun K: P4GA & Anachronauts

Watch Video

Brad: Hercules & Lucy

Watch Video

Vangelus: Dinobots Grimlock

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Food Chain

Watch Video

Rap Critic: Ridin

Watch Video

Brad: TR - Infringment

Watch Video

NChick: BYOA - S2E8

Watch Video

Paw: QfG4 Parts 5-6

Watch Video

Tom: Beneath the PotA P3

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Breezy

Watch Video

Brad: Babe Ruth Story

Watch Video

Making of NC: Bloodrayne

Watch Video

Vangelus: Batman Arkham City

Watch Video

Word Funk: Serious Dudes

Watch Video

WMR: The Evil Cat

Watch Video

Nerd: Ep 121 - Voice Acting

Watch Video

Lotus: Galerians P1-2

Watch Video

MikeJ: When in Rome

Watch Video

Diamanda: Rock & Rule

Watch Video

Leon: Four Lions

Watch Video

Phelous: Beauty & the Beast P1

Watch Video

Shaun K: One Piece OWR

Watch Video

Adventure Time: Sad Face

Watch Video

Blog Categories

What's Up? (141)
Sports (264)
News (279)
Book Reviews (550)
Funny (572)
Top # Lists (735)
Animation (918)
Wrestling (986)
Movies (1049)
Anime (1069)
Thoughts (1144)
Comics (1190)
Misc Reviews (1281)
Music (1392)
Video Reviews (1930)
Film Review (2711)
Uncategorized (4009)
Video Games (5147)
Old Blogs (15314)