(Editor's note: In my ongoing fight for clarity and fairness, I'm publishing this as Terence sent it in, that is, with Mike's entire original rebuttal intact and Terence's comments inserted, all caps. To further clarify, however, Terence's comments have been colored blue. I'll be back at the very end with my closing comments.---Nolan)

First of all, Jason will always be Jason. See it's kinda' like yer head. If I tore it off and gave it to yer next of kin, it will still be your head. If I pushed in out of the space shuttle's airlock, it would do really neat tricks, but after your brain exploded it's way through your neck, eyes and nasal passages, and your eyes detonated, and your veins swelled-up, it would still be yer head. Jason will always be Jason, and I for one, feel that to be worth watching. I feel that Kane Hodder is an incredible body actor, and that it will be interesting (at the very least) to see Jason in a new environment stalking his victims the way no one else can. Sure there's corniness involved, but in my opinion, that doesn't immediately make it suck.

YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU'RE RIGHT. JASON WILL ALWAYS BE JASON. JUST LIKE MY HEAD. AND JUST LIKE MY HEAD, IF YOU TEAR IT OFF MORE THAN ONCE, MIKE, IT WILL--BELIEVE IT OR NOT--BE ALREADY OLD AFTER THE SECOND TIME. NO MATTER HOW MANY MORE DIFFERENT WAYS YOU DO IT, IT WILL STIL BE MY OLD, ALREADY DECAPITATED, HEAD. NOTHING NEW--STILL DECAPITATED. BUT OH, LOOK SOMEONE ELSE TORE IT OFF NOW! SEE? WOW! ISN'T THAT DIFFERENT AND NEW! NO, NOT REALLY. JASON X STILL SUCKS. NOW MOVE ON WITH YOUR LIFE.

As for ending the series after Part 2, that's another opinion of yours, that I'm not too fond of. I'm glad that you don't have any real say in the matter, because I personally didn't think the first two were as good as some of the rest of them. But then again, what does my opinion matter next to your own superior intellect and it's vast knowledge of what people like.

...UMM..IF I REALLY WANTED TO SEE JASON RETURNING 8 MORE TIMES MONOTONOUSLY STABBING TEENS WHILE THEY HAVE SEX, ETC. I'LL GO TO ITS SOURCE INSPIRATION: MARA BAVA'S "TWITCH OF THE DEATH NERVE" (AKA "BAY OF BLOOD") 1971. IT WAS RELEASED BY THE HALLMARK CORPORATION WHO ALSO RELEASED CRAVEN AND CUNNINGHAM'S "LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT". CUNNINGHAM WAS CERTAINLY INFLUENCED BY THIS FILM WHICH BOASTS 13 MURDERS. AND TRUST ME, ALL 13 ARE RIPPED OFF IN THE "FRIDAY THE 13TH" SERIES. PART 2 IN PARTICULAR, WHICH IS WHY IT SHOULD HAVE ENDED THERE. A FILM WHICH COPIES AN OLDER ONE CAN AT LEAST GET AWAY WITH BEING CALLED AN HOMAGE. BUT A WHOLE SERIES IS SHAMELESS MONEY-GRUBBING.

So what if he's in space? What's the problem? Is it that they're taking a familiar character and placing them in a new environment, I'd have thought you'd be glad that they were REACHING to try something at least a LITTLE New with a character like that? So sorry to disrupt you. Yes, it takes place in the possible future.

YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOU REALLY LOVED THE CHARACTER YOU WOULDN'T WANT HIM IN SPACE OR ANYTHING SO ABSURD. I MEAN DIDN'T I PUT YOU TO TEARS WHEN THEY DEMOLISHED THE ORIGINAL MOONRAKER STORY AND PUT BOND IN SPACE!!!

Now, I DO happen to feel that the script for it DOES suck, I won't say that it doesn't. My OPINION is based on the fact that I've read most of the script, but at the moment you're having problems with the cover of the book?

WELL MIKE! IF IT SUCKS, WHY DEFEND IT SO VEHEMENTLY. IF IT SUCKS, NO AMOUNT OF GOOD DIRECTION OR "BODY ACTING" CAN SAVE IT. THIS I DON'T UNDERSTAND. PLEASE DON'T TELL ME THAT YOU LIKE THE CHARACTER SO MUCH THAT YOU LATCH ON TO ANY BAD PLOY THE STUDIOS PUSH ON US FOR BUCKS. IF SO, IT'S WORKING. IF THAT IS THE CASE AND YOU LIKE FREDDY KRUEGER, I'M SURE YOU BOUGHT INTO THAT FIASCO WHICH IS "FREDDY'S DEAD". ME, I'M JUST SORRY I BOUGHT THE TICKET. BUT THEN AGAIN, I WAS ONLY 11 OR 13.

That makes sense though, considering some of your articles in the past. You know, the whole "look at me, I know more than everybody else, and only MY opinions count for anything" kind of nonsense. Perhaps it's time that folks let you know what they thought of your articles. Similar to how you decided to tell them what you thought about the things they liked to write about.

FIRST OFF, I NEVER SAID THAT. SECOND OFF, TERENCE'S TIRADE IS SUPPOSED TO BE SARCASTIC. THAT'S THE POINT. IT'S AN EDITORIAL. YOU JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE FACT THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN YOU AND WHO YOU KNOW HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION ON MOVIES AND ART. YES, ART. A WORD THAT CAN HARDLY BE APPLIED TO TODAY'S FILMS. THEY ARE BACK TO BEING NUDIE PICTOGRAPHS LIKE IN EDISON'S DAY, THERE FOR JUST A BUCK. GUESS WHAT? THERE IS A WORLD BEYOND SPIELBERG AND LUCAS. EXCUSE ME IF I THINK THEY SUCK. YOU THINK I DON'T GET TIRED OF HEARING THEM GET OVERPRAISED BY THE MEDIA AND EVERYONE ELSE, WHILE MORE TALENTED DIRECTORS GET THE SHAFT. I.E., ALEX PROYAS (DARK CITY), JOEL COEN, WERNER HERZOG, TODD SOLONDZ, ETC. YOU KNOW, MOVIES DO EXIST OUTSIDE OF YOUR LOCAL AMC THEATRE AND BEYOND WHAT HOLLYWOOD AND THE ACADEMY TELL YOU IS GOOD. THIS SITE (PCR) NEEDS A DIFFERENT OPINION AND, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR GOING TO GET IT. THERE WAS NO DIVERSITY HERE. WELL, WELCOME TO IT.

Does that seem silly to anyone else? Nolan called it presumptuous, at the time. I choose to call it a sign of arrogance, and self-centeredness. It's as if to say: "No human being contains any information that is superior to mine, nor can they make any intelligent decisions that aren't the same as I would choose, because obviously, I am the superior enlightened being."

I NEVER SAID I WAS SUPERIOR (BUT THANKS ANYWAY, MIKE). BUT AS FOR ENLIGHTENED, WELL, UNFORTUNATELY THINGS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. AGAIN MIKE, GUESS WHAT? BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I MIGHT HAVE SEEN MORE MOVIES THAN YOU. AND GUESS WHAT--HERE COMES ANOTHER ONE, THEY JUST MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE DIVERSE THAN WHAT YOU'RE USED TO SEEING. NOW DON'T BUST A VEIN…I SAID "MIGHT". I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE OR HAVEN'T SEEN.

Later it was: "Overthrow the government because it hates me, because I'm a Public Access Producer and they haven't gotten me a trophy for it yet." As if Public Access was the government, and your videos pose such a terrible threat to them that they had the choice to either secretly eliminate you, OR make you follow the same rules as everyone else does.

YEAH, SO? I FIGHT FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN. CAN'T YOU TELL THAT BY NOW? OR DO YOU USUALLY LET OTHERS WALK ALL OVER YOUR FREE THOUGHT?

Heh heh, that article killed me, Terence, you've got a very impressive chip on your shoulder. No one owes you anything, so stop demanding tribute. To my knowledge, there isn't anyone here that worships you, because to my knowledge, you haven't earned it.

I DON'T DEMAND A TRIBUTE. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME ONE YOU CAN.

Everyone popular sucks, because everyone else is truly, and genuinely entertained by these popular people."

YEAH, CONGRATS, YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! THE MASSES WATCH DRIVEL BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO THINK. AND THAT'S FINE, THEY ARE FREE TO NOT DO SO FOR ALL I CARE. BUT DON'T FLOOD THE MARKET WITH IT. WHY SHOULD EMPTY FILMS LIKE "ARMEGEDDON" GET NOTICED AND NOT  "O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU" OR  "DARK CITY"?

Personally, I know enough to use and properly place an external microphone when I record something that may be difficult to pick-up with the video camera's mounted microphone. Doesn't that somehow prove that I have more movie knowledge than you, at least when you did your movies on Public Access? No it doesn't, but it perhaps it reminds you that you are NOT the supreme being, incapable of fault? Don't take that personally, because I happen to like some of your horror movies, though I have to say they never created a feeling of uneasiness or fear within me, nor did they ever make me "jump" or cause a quick intake of breath. I should point-out though, that there HAVE been movies by popular folks that were liked by mainstream audiences that HAVE done that.

OK. YOU ATTACKED ME PERSONALLY. NOW WHO'S PRESCHOOL? WELL GUESS WHAT ELSE, FANGORIA SUBSCRIBER (YEAH, YOU KNOW YOU READ IT EVEN IF YOU ARE A CLOSET FAN) I DON'T USE AN EXTERNAL MIKE FOR A REASON. MY CAMERA DOESN'T HAVE AN OUTLET FOR ONE. ALSO, DON'T GO BY BAD TAPE COPIES NOLAN GIVES YOU. I PUT FAR MORE INTO THE VISUALS THAN THE FRICKIN' SOUND. HEY, AT LEAST MY FILMS ARE FILMS THAT TRY TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND ARE NOT JUST EASY WAYS OUT LIKE DOING A SATIRE OF A PREVIOUSLY EXISITING FILM (I.E., THE GULL) SATIRE, MY FRIEND, IS A "COP OUT". ALSO, I NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE YOU JUMP--JUST TO THINK. BUT, IF THAT'S TOO MUCH OF A HASSLE FOR YOU, GO SEE "JASON X".

But in any event, let's talk about what it means to earn fame through superior quality workmanship. If a person, we'll call him "Steven", does really well in his area of expertise, time and time again, I feel that he deserves recognition for his efforts. If movies created with his resources draw attention, even though he isn't 100% involved, that should be fine too, because it's his reputation on the line. According to your line of reasoning, he shouldn't get anything for ANY work he did on "Lost World", because apparently he only directed via satellite, so therefore, that movie was basically directed by a hack. But, I have to ask, if that movie was a god-awful failure, who's name was it that was going to be dragged through the mud? Steven's.

OKAY, YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE STOCK IN DREAMWORKS, BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE WAY BETTER DIRECTORS. HE GETS TOO MUCH ATTENTION FOR MEDIOCRE FILMS. EVERYONE CALLS THEM GREAT, BUT THESE SAME PEOPLE AREN'T AWARE THAT THERE ARE FILMS BEYOND THE LOCAL THEATRE. AND USUALLY DON'T WANT TO BE AWARE. SPIELBERG DEFINTELY HAS THE TECHNICAL KNOW-HOW, BUT AS A DIRECTOR, HE'S BRINGING NOTHING NEW TO CINEMA. WITH HIS POWER, HE COULD TAKE RISKS, BUT THAT WOULD MEAN POSSIBLE FAILURE AND GASP!!! WHAT--MAYBE NO OSCAR!! AAAAAAAAAAHHH!! BOTH HE AND LUCAS ARE BLOATING THE FIELD WITH THEIR FILMS AND THE IDIOT PRODUCERS FIGURE THAT EVERYBODY MUST LIKE IT, "SO WE'LL MAKE MORE".

Amistad was ripped off someone else's story. So? No one's expecting Steven to write the stories that his movies are based on. If it's ripped-off so flagrantly, then why doesn't anyone press charges? Did they figure Steve was too broke to get any money off him? Or did they somehow miss the movie coming out? Or did they not have your superior intellect at work on noting the similarities?

HE WAS!!!! TAKEN TO COURT, MIKE. BUT BECAUSE SPIELBERG IS RICH, HE HAD BETTER LAWYERS! THAT'S JUST LIFE. YOU KNOW HE MUST COME OUT THE GOOD LITTLE HOLLYWOOD DIRECTOR.

As far as the Boy Scout thing goes, he was supporting the Boy Scouts without any notable fanfare. Doesn't that suggest that he was doing that for "the right" reasons? There isn't really a "right" reason, but I thought I'd use that to illustrate just how subjective this type of material is. In any event, as a business man that's trying to put out movies that promote tolerance, it would be considered very bad to keep supporting a group that was non-tolerant. So you're ticked-off because he's a good business man? Gee, that's enlightened. Oh wait, I get it, his movies suck now because he did that. Hmm...that doesn't seem to be it either.

I NEVER SAID THAT HIS MOVIES SUCK BECAUSE HE IS A SHAMELESS PROMOTER. BUT BUSINESS MAN DOESN'T RYHME WITH ARTIST, DOES IT? ARTISTIC FULLFILMENT VERY RARELY RYHMES WITH BUCKS, EITHER.

Oh.. here it is. He was successfully created movies that entered into the mainstream and were praised. That makes him a horrible man that sold-out, so anything he does from this point on is entirely suspect. As we all know, selling-out means that you compromised your vision in-order to get tickets sold. It's funny though that selling-out, and being successful are so closely linked. I suppose Steve has this vision of his that he's decided to sell-out for the fame and money?

NO. SPIELBERG NEVER SOLD OUT, HE WAS BORN SOLD. ALL HIS FILMS HAVE BEEN A THROWBACK TO THE DAYS OF THE MAINSTREAM HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTER. AND THAT WAS FINE IN THE 80'S, BUT NOW THE MARKET IS FLOODED WITH THEM ALL BECAUSE OF LUCAS AND SPIELBERG'S "VISIONS". AND YES, TO ME THEIR VISIONS ARE TRITE AND BORING. ALTERNATIVE FILM DOESN'T NECESSARILY SPELL "UNNACCESSIBLE". SOME PEOPLE JUST GO INTO NON-MAINTREAM FILMS WITH A CLOSED MIND. USUALLY CLOSED FOR THEM BY CRAP TV-MAGS, LIKE ENTERTAINMNET TONIGHT.

Don't you think that when you want to create your own business, you'd want to do things in such a way that you'd be able to make enough money, that you'd be able to put the money back into it in order to work on whatever you really WANT to work on?

YEAH, BUT AT WHAT POINT DO I STOP MAKING FILMS FOR MONEY AND RETURN TO THE TRUE UNINHIBITED ART? HMMM?

Whoa! Hold the phone!!! You mean that the movie industry is a BUSINESS? I always thought that the purpose of a business was to be successful, not waste time and energy on projects that may never draw much money. Isn't it ironic? One of the filmmakers you lumped in there was George Lucas that actually funded 99% of "The Empire Strikes Back" all by himself simply because he couldn't get financial backing for the project without COMPROMISING HIS VISION TO FIT WHAT THE MASSES WANTED. Even though it was HIS vision that caused Star Wars to do so well, DESPITE the fact that most of it "went out on a limb".

YEAH, IT IS A BUSINESS, WHICH IS WHY JASON X SUCKS. TO HELL WITH CASH. IF SPIELBERG AND LUCAS AND MICHAEL BAY INCLUDED HAVE SO MUCH POWER THAN THEY SHOULD USE IT TO FURTHER FILM. NOT RETURN US TO A REHASH OF THE STUDIO-CONTROLLED CINEMA. THAT'S WHY THE MIDINIGHT MOVIE CIRCUIT IS DEAD. THANK SPIELBERG FOR THAT. YOU MIGHT HAVE EVEN HAD A CHANCE TO GET ONE OF OUR AMATEUR FILMS VIEWED AT A MIDNIGHT MOVIE. BUT NOT NOW.

Oh no...wait a sec...his vision and business sense isn't YOUR vision or business sense, so he's just an inconsequential moron wearing a Jar Jar t-shirt somewhere out in California who spends all day counting his money. Hmm...doesn't that mean that his business was a success? NO, it means he sold out, simply because he wanted everything to look better, and the effects to be more convincing.

SORRY, I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE TELLS ME (AND HARRYHAUSEN FANS UNITE WITH ME ON THIS ONE), CGI SUCKS THE BIG ONE. UNTIL I SEE TREES IN REAL LIFE THAT SHINE LIKE GLOSS, IT STILL SUCKS. IF IT IS NOT PERFECTED, DON'T USE IT--OR USE IT TO A MINIMUM. IF ONLY LUCAS WOULD BOTHER USING SOME ARTISTIC JUDGEMENT OR TASTE. GO AHEAD MIKE, ADMIT THAT YOU ENJOY CGI TIE-FIGHTERS BETTER THAN THE MODEL ONES. IM SURE YOU'LL GET A LOT OF SUPPORT THERE. YEAH, RIGHT! THESE CGI ASSHOLES PUT RALPH MCQUARRIE AND HIS GORGEOUS MATTES OUT OF BUSINESS. FOR WHAT? GLOSSY SHINY CGI? WHERES THE ART? ART TAKES TIME AND EFFORT, BUT WITH TIME AND EFFORT YOU LOSE THE BIG BUCKS. DUH!! TERENCE. GEE, WHAT WAS I THINKING?

But he did what he set-out to do, right? NO, he was a filmmaker with a vision that has sold himself out like the wanton whore that he is, this is apparently someone else's vision he's using, because he compromised his own! Hmm… Why would a guy like that be so picky about what people do with his Star Wars characters? Or about the content of the Star Wars novels after selling folks the rights to use them? Because he's exploiting his vision for profit, even though it's NOT his vision, because he sold out, and he wants to make sure that anyone using the characters leaves them in good enough shape to resell them. Thereby additionally profiting for his hard labor, which makes him a complete sell-out.

SEE, YOU DON'T GET IT. LUCAS'S VISION IS THE PROFIT. WHY ELSE ALL THE EXCESSIVE MARKETING OF POINTLESS TRINKETS.

Tom Hanks and Robin Williams are famous for their acting abilities, they may have "suffered" some typecasting, but that doesn't ruin their abilities, it merely hones the stuff that they're good at. They're good, and have been recognized for that. It's a shame that you don't agree with that, but so what? Are we all supposed to say," Oh yeah, I hate them now because Terence doesn't like them?"

YEAH, THEY ARE FAMOUS BECAUSE CRITICS AND MASS MEDIA TELLS YOU THEY ARE. YOU CAN SAY YOU THINK THEY ARE GOOD BUT PLEASE, OH PLEASE, DON'T TRY TO USE FAME AS A VALIDITY. I MEAN DOES THAT MEAN THEN THAT GARY OLDMAN AND KLAUS KINSKI ARE BAD ACTORS? THAT SODERBURG IS A BETTER DIRECTOR THAN COEN?

The Movie theater notes, and the Oscars are things that I don't care about, personally, and I feel that perhaps the theater closings are too local to be of much interest to the internet at large. I know how to skip past articles that don't interest me, and leave it well enough alone, because I know there are people who DO like the topics. However, your rantings against them are very interesting because they illustrate the fact that you want Nolan to "sell-out" to YOUR point of view! Isn't your whole beef with the idea that stuff is too PC these days, and over-produced, etc..? You're an incredible hypocrite, Terence. People do what they want BECAUSE it's what they want, not because some "supreme being" like yourself came down to tell them how to think.

TELL THEM WHAT TO THINK? ISN'T THAT WHAT THE MEDIA TELLS YOU TO DO AND THE UNTHINKING PUBLIC WHEN ALL THEY OFFER ARE GLOSSY EXPLOSIONS AND NOT ART?

Here's one of the parts I loved: #9 on your list of hated things about PCR: "The fact that I have to take up a whole column's worth of time to point all this out to you all." Oh, well gee, sorry that we needed your guidance, oh worthy one. Please, if we seem to need anymore guidance, I beseech you to not intervene so that your precious time isn't wasted.

AGAIN MIKE, SARCASM.

I think the best part about your article was its ending: "In closing, if you don't like what I have to say, tell somebody else other than me." With the implied additional ending of: "because I'm sensitive, and you might make me cry. You have to listen to what I say, because I'm the supreme being, but I don't have to listen because you're all going to be wrong.

HEH HEH, DIDN'T LISTEN DID YOU? SEE, REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY DOES WORK.

The impression you've been making is that of a whiner, not the dark and brooding spectre you keep practicing in the mirror. If you want more respect, lay-off the self-loathing and hypocrisy so that you may become a more PC-type personality. Folks here have been asked in the past to take it easy on you because you're just a kid, but you're not that much younger than me, and I figure that you're just going to have to deal with it. You're an adult now, so start acting like it and quit whining.

THE DARK AND BROODING PERSONA IS HYPED BY NOLAN AND I HATE IT. I NEVER ASKED FOR RESPECT, JUST DIVERSITY ON THIS SITE WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE GETTING.

Terence, when your head comes out your ass, please feel free to comment. I for one, am not afraid of ANY rebuttal you might decide to send my way.
-Mike (Deadguy) Scott

GOOD THEN, YOU WON'T MIND THIS REBUTTAL. YOU SEE, YOU'LL NEVER AGREE WITH ME, BECAUSE YOU REPRESENT BLASÉ FILMS AND HOLLYWOOD'S PATHETIC, BORING OUTPUT, WHILE I'M FOR A CHALLENGING AND UNDERGROUND CINEMA. NOT BECAUSE ITS UNDERGROUND, JUST BECAUSE IT'S GOOD. AND IT'S USUALLY GOOD BECAUSE IT'S FREE FROM THE RESTRICTIONS OF MAKING A BUCK. IT'S FREE AND TRUE BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD TO BE, GET IT? IN UPCOMING ISSUES OF THE TIRADE I WILL INDEED "ENLIGHTEN YOU" ON BETTER FILMS. I PLAN TO DO A SERIES ON "FILMS THAT YOU'VE NEVER SEEN, BUT SHOULD" AFTER ALL, I AM "SUPERIOR AND ENLIGHTENED", YOU SAY SO YOURSELF, MIKE. AFTER ALL, I THINK I SHOULD AT LEAST BACK MY HOLINESS UP WITH SOME PROOF. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, YOU'LL EVEN LEARN WHY JASON X SUCKS.
TERENCE NUZUM

Whew! Nolan here. I just realized the black-and-blue coloring on this page is rather symbolic, isn't it? Obviously we've struck a deep, deep chord within these two exceptionally articulate and emotional movie fans who are both good friends of mine and who couldn't BE more opposite! Taking my life in my hands, I wish to further clarify a few points:
1.) When Terence says "sarcastic", I BELIEVE he means "cynical". Or "cynical sarcasm". As opposed to "just joking".
2.) Re: "The dark and brooding persona is hyped by Nolan and I hate it." This is an old wound. It started as friendly teasing when he was still a teenager--and we laughed about it at the time--but others picked up on it and it got out of control. I haven't promoted that "handle" in a year and will not again.
3.) "The Gull". A public access movie parody based on "The Crow". Featured on Eric Avant's show "The Front", Mike Scott co-produced and starred as "The Gull".
3.) The movies produced by Terence for public access TV Mike refers to I'm hoping to make available this summer sometime on Crazed Fanboy.com. Yes, we've been around the block a few times on how aggressively I promote it and what tactics I use. Obviously, I'm on sensitive ground here since this means we're both potential movie entrepreneurs.
4.) I, too, subscribe to FANGORIA and I still like it, too. There...I've said it.
Nolan B. Canova