Originally Posted by perfectblade
i don't really see why you feel the need to defend such an immature manchild. guess what, when you have to hold down a job, you are required to be you know professional and mature in that context, even if customers or critics are not
I get the feeling moocowman watched Indie Game: The Movie and now thinks Phil Fish isn't such a bad guy and that all the hatred towards him is unwarranted.
Fun fact: Documentaries are rarely unbiased pieces of work.
Here's an interesting quote from Shawn McGrath, Fish's ex-partner's current partner (or something like that), on Neogaf:
Hello everyone, I can't find the info for my old account so I made a new one to post (I usually just lurk; I'm a terrible person).
I wrote those tweets, and I admit twitter probably isn't the best place to make a coherent argument, so I'll try to clear up whatever I can now. I *HATE* the drama as much as you guys do, but in this case I feel being silent is worse than speaking up. The other side of the story had a public outlet to make their side known, and with the movie released and seen by so many people it became impossible to solve this behind-the-scenes, so I had to say something publicly.
I had strong feelings about the way the ex-partner was portrayed in the film (full disclosure: he helped immensely on my game, and he was at PAX East during the film to help me demo my game), but I had no intention of saying anything until long after my game was released so as not to confuse the two things. I'm going public with this to attempt to right some wrongs; I'm simply stating the truth because no one else was doing it.
The main reason that caused me to speak up is the underlined screenshot above that states: "Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film." That is completely false. That line was not in the screeners, and was added only to the final version. He asked to participate and was told his story was not needed. He then contacted the IGTM people asking for a line to be inserted into the movie stating that he was not asked to participate. The text they put in the movie is a lie, and the complete opposite of what happened. It's what caused me to go public with anything.
You'll also notice that there's a big contrast between "Ken Schachter - new partner" (as listed in the movie) and the "ex-partner". It should also be noted that the first executive producer listed in the credits is "Ken Schachter". To me this is a clear conflict of interest. Ken is portrayed in a heroic role near the end of the film for solving the contract dispute with the antagonistic "ex-partner" and only that one side of the story is shown. Regardless of what the other side is, (it's not my position to state what the actual facts are), the conflict of interest should be noted, and anything related to that should be taken with a grain of salt.
As for the comments regarding expecting a documentary to be objective truth - one can hope right?
I recognize that most, (no?), documentaries present 100% objective truth, but that doesn't make it okay. Especially when another person is being attacked and someone is saying he's going to murder him. Expecting 100% truth and expecting a film with a clear conflict of interest to attempt to be truthful, rather than go out of their way to lie (referring to the line in the credits) are two separate things. I agree that showing his side of the story would probably make for a worse film, but that's no reason to treat someone so dishonestly.
Thanks for reading this wall of text. I will be around to clear up anything that I'm able to.
Full thread here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=478250
In the time since that thread was made the film has had the line in the credits corrected. The real interesting part is the fact that throughout the entire film, Fish's ex-partner is portrayed as a an evil villain determined to ruin Fish's work, all while the film makers tell the ex-partner that he isn't needed when he approached them to offer his side of the story. The fact that Fish's current partner is listed as first executive producer is particularly interesting. For those of you unaware of what an executive producer does, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_producer
I, nor anyone except those directly involved, know the full story of the dispute. But one with a cynical eye can't help but see this film as little more than a fluff piece for Fish and Fez. Considering the people involved behind the scenes, the refusal to show the other side of the story, Fish's history and the timing of the release of the film being so close to the release of Fez, I have about as much faith in these guys to present an unbiased view of Fish as I do in ExxonMobil presenting an unbiased view of oil production.
Originally Posted by Defoler
I'm sure blizzard or EA or other big companies developers who see a huge thread of "we hate the developers" will get hurt. The difference is they have the big corporation support behind them to back them up. This guy has no one for support. So no wonder he is so hurt about it..
The difference is people don't hate Fish because of his game. They hate him because he does nothing but poke the giant, angry bear that is the internet with a stick and then throws a crying fit and acts like he's the victim when said bear claws his face off. The guy has horrible social skills and should have hired a PR rep to keep him in line years ago.