This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I am NOT a sidekick!"
11944 members | you are not logged in | 30 July 2014












February 01 2007

A secondhand tale about Nathan Fillion. Notwithstanding Nathan Fillion's solid ten-year track record of being courteous and professional with the media, a blogger is publishing an account of the Edmonton Journal's film reviewer that Nathan refused to talk to her because she gave Serenity a bad review.

This despite the fact that he and his family have done subsequent interviews with the Edmonton Journal in which they make light of that bad review. And despite the fact that he's a local boy who is making it big, but still continues to support Edmonton's arts community by visiting local high school drama classes, appearing onstage at Edmonton's Fringe Festival, and narrating a documentary about that festival.

[ edited by Simon on 2007-02-02 00:57 ]

"Fillion snarled"?! He's a werewolf! I knew it!
This doesn't claim to be an eyewitness account. I don't see the reporter themselves commenting either. Honestly, I think this is the very first negative comment I have ever seen about Nathan Fillion.

Either way, it seems like something to shrug off. He didn't appear to be outright rude and the article didn't go into detail about his comments and was very vague about the length of time he spent on his "tirade". The epitome of journalism it isn't.
I know that stars can have bad days, and may not always be uber nice, but from all of the stories of him... I never heard of him act in such a vile way. I would not take this blog entry seriously and put it up with gossiping etc...
I didn't mean to suggest that I gave any credence to the whole "Egomaniac Actor Takes a Dump on the Media" tone of the blog post. It's way too inconsistent with a gazillion other glowing accounts of his interactions with the media and the public to take very seriously. I was just surprised to see how Edmonton's local film reviewer appears to have been snarking about him to others in the media.
For whatever it's worth, I submitted the following comment in response to Mr. Ramos, which I thought I'd share here since I don't know if it'll be approved for posting on his blog...

First of all, this is all tacky hearsay at best. (You yourself admit it's "gossip".) Here you are making an accusation without any apparent attempt at corroboration or attribution, and without first affording the accused a chance to respond or defend himself. Classy. (Meanwhile, your sidebar trumpets that you're "the winner of numerous journalism awards". Please.)

Secondly, your headline is as misleading as it is inflammatory. Declining to speak to one reporter out of probably hundreds hardly qualifies as "withdrawing support" for the film he's representing - or "bad behavior", for that matter. So not only are you reporting an event that by your own admission hasn't even been corroborated to be true, you're adding insult to injury by grossly mischaracterizing the alleged event. Wow.

Finally, even if this did really happen, it would have _entirely_ been Mr. Fillion's prerogative to choose not to speak to a reporter who had written negatively about his prior work - especially if, as you yourself assert, said reporter went out of their way not to introduce him/herself in an attempt to shield their identity from Mr. Fillion. Come on!

And by the way? I've met Nathan, and know people who've worked with him. He's one of the good guys - an incredibly decent individual (not to mention very talented).

I respect that this is your blog, but would appreciate it if you would approve this comment for posting. Thanks.

Look, the guy's human and it's highly possible that the reporter approached him in a less-than-civil way and he responded in like kind. Hey! Maybe she even grabbed his ass! ;-) Seriously though, even if it IS true, so. fucking. what. For this one accounting of bad behavior (and I would even posit it's probably not so much 'bad' as 'called for'), there are scores of examples of Nathan being a mensch. This ain't even a pebble in the pond. :-)
Nice comments Robogeek!!
That Fillion is such a diva. One of my favorite gossip stories came from an American friend and colleague who saw Fillion threw his cell phone at Patrick Dempsey.
lol@Dizzy I thought he threw his cell phone at T.R. Knight and called him the b-word, and then totally trashed on Joe Sweden.
I heard that was instigated by Dempsey when he insulted Fillion's choice of styling products... guy seems to have some sort of hair superiority complex.
Well, he is a "hair actor" after all. Perhaps his hair was jealous of all the acclaim that Dempsey's hair has been getting for its work on Grey's Anatomy.

[ edited by BrewBunny on 2007-02-01 23:04 ]
Even IF (emphasis on IF) this happened, I can't blame him. If I were in his position, I wouldn't want to talk to someone who had trashed my previous work either.
Yeah, but I can't see him "snarling" at someone and going on a "tirade" because of a review. Just can't. And the fact that the blogger calls it gossip, then writes it as if it is fact bugs me.
I can't believe that at this point a reporter from his hometown doesn't know he must first approach Mr. Fillion with an offering of baby kittens and yam pie. Or was that baby yams and kitten pie?
Mmmm... kitten pie.
With or without their kitten fur?
Without, of course. With would be barbaric!
"But not a real fur pie; that's cruel!"

(And suddenly, I am giggling like a perverted teenaged boy :-P)
Kitten-sans-fur pie is the only kind of kitten pie I'll eat.

This just in: Nathan Fillion storms out on an interview when the reporter insults his hair.
I heard that he stormed onto the set of 'So You Think You Can Dance ?' shouting "I do too have the legs of a dancer !" and proceeded to tango for 6 straight hours before being escorted out by security.

NF always seems to play with irony quite a bit, could it be the reporter just got the wrong end of the schtick ?

(and as others have said, even if he did lose it a bit, he's human, they we do that sort of shit sometimes, and it's one tiny blip in an otherwise almost angelically spotless run of niceness)

Also, fur-sans-kitten pie is the only sort of kitten-less fur pie i'll eat. Sure, chewy but fewer bones and it's great roughage. In that respect it's a lot like prunes. Made of fur.
Personally, I would probably have done something similar if I had been in Nathan's shoes. I mean, the journalist didn't identify himself properly - ooh...writing faux pas there, bucko - and I can understand if Nathan might have perceived an issue with the reporter's potential possession of bias.

Plus, did ya notice that no mention is given to what actually caused Nathan to get the lighbulb glowin' and realize that he's getting interviewed by someone who's slammed him at least twice? Cuz I get the feeling that there was a question asked that even Jesus or Gandhi (keeping with the 'Verse's Christian/Buddhism split) would have said "Up yours, buddy!" to...;)
This just in : Nathan loves kitten sans fur pie.
i met nathan fillion a few years ago at dragon con. and i have to say that the man couldn't have been more pleasant and personable if you paid him to be. he is as nice a soul as he is a talented actor. and damn pretty too.

that being said, i'm more than giving him the benefit of the doubt on this story as this story is heresay at best. and as a former news reporter, i have to say that i'm a little disappointed with a journalist trying to pass gossip/heresay off as fact.

and even if it's true (which i highly doubt given fillion's track record), i can't say that i blame fillion. if he knows that this reporter has it out for him and has a history of trashing his work, why should he put himself out there to get ambushed by her yet again?
Oh, so Nathan will be in the next "Rocky Horror Picture Show"? Cool! Wonder how he looks in tights?
Interviewer fails to identify her/himself, hiding the fact that that s/he has spoken badly of interviewee in print in the past. Upon discovery, interviewee expresses displeasure at concealment instead of fawning over interviewer. Interviewer and friend describe this as interviewee behaving badly.. Who has the ego problem?
This must be why Mr. Fillion isn't blogging lately. He's been far too busy to do so given all the time he's been spending snarling at reporters (I hear he's especially mean to old people and blind kids, too) and throwing cell phones at Patrick Dempsy (who, let's be honest, really does have better hair).

What's next? Fist fights with kittens? Where will the madness end???
Please. Even if this happened (a huge "if," in my opinion), I'm shocked the reporter didn't just shrug, pack up their stuff and move on.

I had the good fortune to meet the actor in question at the "Canned Flan" in early December - an event that could've been a Biblically-sized disaster. And this ISN'T gossip: he was good-tempered, kind, funny and gave away stuff from his closet, including the cardboard box.

Yeah. That's a diva, all right.
Ambushed is definitely the proper word, and it may very well be what the Article in question actually is: An Ambush. I imagine this 'Journalist' is fully expecting to get dozens of angry comments on his Blog, which he can then use as "examples" of the "horrible behavior that Browncoats are so prone to". IMO, this is a person who deserves no response, period.

To Quote the BDM...
Zoe: So, Trap?
Mal: Trap.

[ edited by TDBrown on 2007-02-02 12:13 ]
I wonder if the person he is refering to is Katherine Monk who is a movie reviewer for the CanWest News Service.
Hmmm. Now we're thinking:)
This can only end well.

Posters are reminded of our golden rule "criticise the content, not the writer".

Perhaps Nathan will shrug this off as it is part of the job description and perhaps we should as well.

Cause the last thing I want is a sodding witch hunt.
Point taken, Simon. Feel free to delete the thread if you see fit.
Fur has no roughage (pure animal protein). Gandhi was a Hindu. And kitten pie is high in cholesterol and moral turpitude.

And Nathan can be a bit gruff, from what I've heard/read/seen, but I don't believe this hissyfit nonsense.

[ edited by dreamlogic on 2007-02-02 01:37 ]
RavenU - if check here it doesn't look like the person you've listed has ever reviewed Serenity.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/author-1152/

*villagers sigh and put out torches*

P.S. you're bad
This just in: BrewBunny starts Big Brewhaha between Browncoats and Busybody Blogger.

;)
CanWest seems to have 2 film reviewers Katherine Monk and Jay Stone. Unless Jay is a she that leaves Katherine. She has interviewed Nathan before http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=cfa4a811-eada-404b-86fc-bf105ec847c4&p=1. Also CanWest was blamed for the bad review in the Edmonton Journal, "When I call the Fillion household, I'm politely called on the carpet. The Fillions were not thrilled with The Edmonton Journal's review of Serenity. I deftly blame CanWest News Service, who gave it just two stars."

So I was just speculating after some looking around the internet.

Also Katherine Monk has reported from Sundance almost every single year, including this one.

[ edited by RavenU on 2007-02-02 01:46 ]
I don't know this writer, but I've heard so many times of what is actually said by the interviewee being taken out of context or manipulated to the interviewer's/publisher's advantage in order to create notoriety for themselves. In this case, it was someone other than the actual writer who is repeating hearsay, so we don't really know. Reminds me of when Al Pacino did his famous Playboy interview many years ago, the results of which scared him off doing interviews for a very long time. Eh, take stuff like this with a grain of salt.
Simon, Your edit to the title I originally gave the thread ("Edmonton Journal Film Reviewer Spreading Mal-icious Tales About Hometown Hero?") actually makes it inaccurate. The blog I linked to is not the Canadian film writer who allegedly claims to have been treated to an old-fashioned Hollywood hissy-fit. It's her American friend who is apparently snarking on her behalf.

May I be so impertinent as to ask why the original thread title was edited? I specifically used a question mark to convey the idea that there is room for doubt about the American blogger's story. (My job involves spending all day thinking about the myriad of ways that words on paper can get one sued, so I try to be careful.)
And in terms of the blog entry itself, Nathan getting mad about one reviewer for reviews on his film? Why would he get mad at one bad review. Plus there were a few other negative reviews and the film didnt get a big block buster performance, so why would he be mad at one reviewer? I don't get that.
I second the above query. Why on earth was BrewBunny's original headline re-written? Especially to the point of misleading inaccuracy? (And yes, I'm criticizing the new headline's content, not its writer.)

P.S.: While we're at it, "second hand" should be one word. (See dictionary.com.)
Fur has no roughage (pure protein)

Humpf, yeah, well, you can prove anything with facts. But, err, take Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyk but Chewbacca lives on Endor. That doesn't make sense ! What does that have to do with this point ? Nothing ! That doesn't make sense either ! None of it makes sense ! So, in summation, if Chewbacca lives on Endor then fur must have roughage !*

Clearly I meant the 'fur' of the rare Tibetan Kitten Plant. Didn't think of that did you ? Hmmm ? (and probably only partly cos I made it up). Still, i'm seriously reconsidering my fur-sans-kitten diet, I just don't feel like i'm getting the benefit anymore.

*with apologies to South Park ;)
This just in: BrewBunny starts Big Brewhaha between Browncoats and Busybody Blogger.

I'm a bbbbaaaaaad girl, I am. ;-)
No it's not impertinent. You raised a good point. Previous experience has taught me when well regarded actors or actresses get negative stories attributed to them, a minority of fans (not on this site) can react negatively to the writer of such stories (abusive threatening emails etc). And this can reflect on the fandom as a whole.

But I did mess up the re-worded title and will quite own up to that.

Please do feel free to email me about this matter and I will quite happily expound upon the small number of fans who upset the apple cart for everyone else.
Fair 'nuff, Simon. We've seen before that Fillion has the power to mobilize hundreds of angry Browncoats (a certain comic book store owner learned that one the hard way) - I'd love to think that I have that same kind of power too. Mwahahahahaaha! But seriously, if you are concerned about that, then I'd rather you delete/move/hide the thread entirely. My point of posting the link was not to claim that Fillion is a jerk, but rather to point out how jerky it was for a local film writer to apparently (and unjustifiably) be trashing a guy who was still really supportive of his hometown.

[ edited by BrewBunny on 2007-02-02 01:51 ]
*sigh* that particular reviewer (who is printed in newspapers all over western Canada) was so frakkin negative it was one of the reasons I never saw Serenity in the theater. Proving that one should never listen to reviewers. :D

Whatever the truth behind this story is, we all know that Nathan's a good guy, and that's what counts. :)
I do hope this thread doesn't get deleted, 'cause I did a little research, and my summation is that - even aside from the fact of Nathan's undeniably big heart and good manners - this story doesn't add up.

(As our post says, the Fillon clan was not thrilled with the review, but they have kidded about it and dealt graciously, as in this article and others, with the Journal since that review.)

As far as I can tell, the Edmonton Journal "Serenity" review was written by Katherine Monk (though I haven't yet located a copy of it) who writes for the Vancouver Sun, and who also, with several others, writes syndicated film reviews for the mega media conglomerate CanWest News.

The most peculiar aspect of the "story" is that Katherine Monk, the two-star Serenity reviewer herself, interviewed Nathan and wrote a favourable story about him after the review, in March of 2006. This, in my estimation, gives the lie to the likelihood of the whole Nathan "Oooh-I'm-still-so-mad-at-you-'cause of your-review-in-2005" Fillion rudeness to her in 2007.

"...There are a lot of people who are probably way more talented than me that don't have regular work. People keep giving me opportunities. I'm so lucky to be a working actor, and I credit Joss Whedon for making me one of the luckiest people working today. He was the one who asked me to be a leading man and gave me a chance when everyone else saw me as the villain. He let me play a hero in Firefly, and that's huge," says Fillion, 35, who now makes his home in Los Angeles..." -- Making shift to leading man from the villain: Slither's Edmonton-raised star had smooth ride from student thespian to hero, by Katherine Monk, CanWest News Service, Published: Friday, March 31, 2006.

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2007-02-02 02:12 ]
Dang it, Simon. You always ruin a good witch hunt with common sense. Very well, putting the flaming pitchfork away until the next time ):
Well in our usual Whedonesque fashion, the thread gets light hearted after a fashion. And that's a good thing especially in cases like this so I have no desire to delete the thread especially as we have newcomers posting. And I like newcomers, so hello to them. I keep forgetting to say hi to people who join up recently.

So hi.

And welcome.

And also truth will out when it comes to gossip like this.
Wait. I'm confused. Nathan beat up a reporter because he said he had "kitten hair"? What does that even mean?

Yeah, I'm really not adding much to this thread.
And if you thought my headline was misleading, you want to see this one.
No, Dizzy. He actually beat her up because she said that gossi's kitty ate her cookie.
Nathan Fillion: human. Headline of the day :-)

Even nice guys have their off moments. It's shocking I know- I always expect my favourite actors to be perfect in every way.
While I'm wasting valuable work hours posting here, can I just say how impressed I am at how far this thread has gone down the hairless cat road without going there, if you know what I mean?
Hairballs...lets get back on course which was....what were we talking about? Nevermind, next topic.
I can never actually speak for or about someone I don't know, but I think that when you have a genuinely good guy who hasn't gone "hollywood" as they say, there are always those who want to find the skeletons in the closet and whether there are any or not doesn't matter sometimes.
May I also comment about the rampant snarkiness in Steve Ramos' bloglet that is linked here? His headline, "'B' also stands for bad behavior...," is clearly meant to imply that Nathan is a "B" actor. I think the writer's attitude is clearly contained in that (i.e., that he plans to be insulting/negative), and therefore that does make me think that the writer is biased or intends to write a slash-and-burn piece.

Another "fishy" aspect to this blog is, if this incident did take place, wouldn't the reporter involved have written something about it in her own paper or blog? It would certainly have been "hometown news" if an interviewee of Nathan's status had stormed out.

All in all, I'm going to vote with the "take it with a grain of salt" crowd.
This is horrible!

Trek_Girl42 wrote February 02, 01:49 CET
I never saw Serenity in the theater.


It makes me so sad when there are Browncoats who haven't seen Serenity on the Big Darn Screen. Somebody please arrange a Serenity Charity Screening near Trek_Girl42. Find Out How To Organize An Event In Your City
Although I'm certainly not going to judge Nathan on the second-hand report of an insult-eager journalist, I have no trouble believing Nathan may have gotten up and walked away. What I feel sure of is, if he did, it was because the journalist was rude and deserved it. There is no reason why an actor should be forced to sit and chat with a journalist who has offended him. The worst part of it all was the use of Adrienne Shelley's death as part of this blogger's tasteless game.
I've never known Nathan to be outright rude - in fact, I've seen him put up with a heck of a lot more from some press members than I ever would if I were on the other side of the recorder. Not to say he couldn't have the off day, but even when people have deliberately pushed his buttons, I've never seen him just walk away "snarling". This just smells of rumormongering and nothing more.

Madhatter - don't even joke about the RHPS thing. I would be front row for it. LOL

Dizzy - leave you alone for a few days and look at the trouble you stir up. Sheesh! Everyone knows you planned the whole incident anyways. Kittens, hair products and all.
Nathan Fillion stole my barbie, so I broke up with him.
Looks up. Ah ha. It's you!

Way I see it, if this story was true wouldn't we have heard about it from various other places?
Ok, I have to confess... Nathan Fillion hacked my MySpace page and put up photos of naked kittens (pre-pie, I think). It took an hour to get my page back and several more to get over the kittens. He has vowed to do worse, so everyone be warned.
I always suspected that was the reason gossi.
Having done the odd interview, I find this highly unlikely. For one thing, there usually is a publicist present at these things (pre-arranged interviews at festivals or press junketts) who is supposed to act as a moderator if things go south (mostly, though, he'll just say "last question, please" about ten minutes into your alotted thirty-minute slot). For another, said publicist usually knows at least a thing or two about the people who apply for an interview opportunity, and they'll deny said opportunity to people who bear a known grudge. In this case, though, it looks like the blogger's the one with the grudge. Maybe Nathan Fillion insulted _his_ hair?
Nathan Fillion stole my barbie, so I broke up with him.


Was the story of Barbie breaking up with Ken, somehow related to the reason that made Nathan steal your Barbie?
That's rude. LOL.
Nathan plays with barbies? He does their hair?? And has tea parties with bald kittens?!?
I am so confused.
Barbie envy? The man clearly has issues.
Nathan has a life sized barbi doll with kitten hair??? Oh I sooo went there...
Imported kitten hair. From Spain, no less. (Cause they have the best kitten hair, as everyone knows)
Well. Guess what ELSE that nasty Nathan Fillion was overheard saying? That Ben is Glory! Can you believe that? The nerve of that man!
*stomps off in a huff*
ruthless1 - He just did that so we'd skip over season 5 and get to season 7. For some reason he seems to think season 7 is the kitten's knees.
Do kittens have knees?

Why am I wondering if kittens have knees??
My favorite reponse?....

You're about to get creamed and you deserve it!

Ha!

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home