Please Send Letters.

Merle Writes:

I’ve noticed at the top of my browser the creative little taglines you guys have for your site. I have to commend you, but also correct you on the current one. According to the man himself, in an interview conducted a couple of years ago, it should be “Acting Sensation Mayor Elect Ted Levine”.Yes, some of us still listen to the older podcasts and even the ancient ones, like the one you did with screenwriter John Rogers. Bring him back. he was a hoot. :)

Nick Replies:

Thanks for the correction! In all honesty, I haven’t spoken to John in ages and wonder if he even remembers what a lovely gentleman I am. As for Mr. Levine, there’s a celebrity I’d like to speak to again but he’s so damn elusive!

Marc Writes:

I’m writing in regards to Devin Faraci’s article:THE DEVIN’S ADVOCATE: DON’T YOU THINK YOU’VE SEEN THE DARK KNIGHT ABOUT ENOUGH? I’m sending this to you because, as I understand it, your the head of I found Mr. Faraci’s article personally offensive and hateful. He is free to his opinion, but why is this anti-movie-fan tirade on your website for movie fans? Your site has always been more cynical and negative than most of the other movie sites on the web. In fact that is one of the reasons I enjoy, but recently the negativity and cynicism have gone toward the extreme. Mr. Faraci’s editorial attacking your own readership is the most egregious example so far. I therefore regret to inform you that I will never visit your site again. If I want to be attacked for my movie going habits, I’ll just call my mother and take the abuse from someone I love.

Nick Replies:

Here’s a tip: Articles preceded by ‘The Devin’s Advocate’ or ‘The Steady Leak’ are editorials and tend to be more inflammatory than the regular site content. They are 100% the views of specific authors and are intended to create debate, and in Devin’s case with that piece… to stir some shit. At this point you should know better. As for all these comments about the site being more cynical than before, I say “poo on you!”. I for one am still being as silly as ever and regardless of what your stance on Devin is, there’s a ton of other people writing for this site. I will say that we’ve targeted fanboys but only because fanboys set themselves up so well for ridicule.

Andrew Writes:

This podcast was GREAT. I laughed consistantly throughout. There were the highs of Pakula and big league chew and no Lows in sight.

Heather Graham is indeed a faggot.

Nick Replies:

Thank you! It’s not one of my favorites, but the audience is King. As for Miss Graham, she isn’t A faggot. She’s just FAGGOT.

Josh Writes:

Hey Nick, quick question.  Every writer on your site, even the new ones, who are doing a just spanky job, seem to be very very liberal.  Why don’t you get a conservative writer, or two, to kind of balance it out just a wee bit?  Don’t give me this crap about how you can’t find a conservative who’s knuckles aren’t too bruised from dragging the ground to type on a keyboard either, we both know they’re out there.  I know it’s your site and you are more than free to employ whoever the heck you want, and if you want people with the same views and values as you, that’s your prerogative, but it would definitely make the site more interesting, and possibly add a wider fan base if there were opposing moral, and political views on the site.  Thanks Nick!

Nick Replies:

I don’t care what a writer’s political or religious views are, just so long as they’re WHITE!

Matt Writes:

Here are the points I’ve been “hinting” at in the thread about “Don’t you think you’ve seen Dark Knight enough” thread.

CHUD has always lacked editorial guardianship.  When I first started writing for you, early in the goings of CHUD, I would send emails asking you for feedback, criticism, adjustment and/or direction.  You’re responses were always either non-existent or non-committal.  “Just write it” was the gist.  All you wanted, obviously, was content.  No direction or desire for WHAT the content should be.  Fine, when it was a start-up, underground enterprise.  Fill in bits on the screen.  Yes, you were inviting people to write for free, and not expecting them to have a professional level of content and writing skill.

CHUD has turned a corner, and is a business enterprise.  You PAY  people to write for you.  You want to be a big player on the scene, obviously so that it opens doors for you in the business where your heart really lies.

Hits have become more important than respect.  You may be making money for you and the writers, but the quality of the content is hitting a new low.  Only the big releases get attention, and CHUD is trolling for a readership of people that it despises.  Yes, you’re getting attention.  In my opinion you’re getting the wrong attention.  You’re getting the hits because of insulting and pandering writing.  There’s always room for that, I suppose, on the internet.  But you will stop being taken seriously by the readership I would assume you would like to hold.

I sincerely suggest a check on your business model and editorial mission statement.  For the long-term.

Now, hit delete and take no further consideration of this waste of words.  Because you’re making money, right?

Nick Replies:

If this were ever about money I would have never built a movie website. I was making $125 an hour at MCI & the CDC when I started doing this and could have made my life a lot easier. More boring but easier. Since I’m a shitty businessman I’ve never had a ‘model’ either. The site is organic and evolving and yes, quite dysfunctional. Part of its appeal I think. As someone on the outside, it’s easy to jump to conclusions about my motives or what our day-to-day is like but you absolutely are as far from the truth as a man can be in terms of the finances and passion involved. People have been getting paid for a long time here, not well for a long time, but paid. Some better than others and perhaps a few that should have been treated better. For the past couple of years it’s been a lot more structured but that’s really none of yours or anyone outside the site’s business. I just happen to be more forthcoming than most, and of course the assholes out there use it against me. CHUD’s never been about mission statements or making money. It’s been about entertaining and offering opinions. I think we’ve done that very well on a damn near 7/365 day basis for the better part of a decade. That has nothing to do with money or some sort of editorial dictum. I still run this site, and at times am a disgruntled absentee parent but always involved. It’s very tough to run a site like this and endure in a very competetive and asinine market where sites are rewarded for cheating and loyalty is nearly nonexistent. Plus, EVERYONE has an opinion and expects the whole thing to revolve around their wants. Also, having done this for so long there’s a certain need for a lack of structure because I bore easily.

I get up in arms when people bitch about the advertisements and to a certain extend I harp on page views because while CHUD ius VERY consistent in its traffic, we don’t get the numbers some other big sites do. Partially because our designers fucked us in the ass and we’re still trying to fix the chassis and functionality of the site and partially because we don’t cheat. I’v eknown about Aronofsky and Robocop for weeks now and didn’t betray an allegiance for the scoop and Devin does the same kind of shit all the time. While we certainly give our favorites a lot of extra pub (Guillermo, Apatow, Edgar Wright, etc), it’s more a result of us finding things we can rely on in this business that keep us excited about the business more than anything else.

And fuck it, we need the pageviews. We need the ads. There have been quite a few months where I didn’t get a paycheck because we couldn’t cover the expenses and payroll came out of my savings. Now that’s my problem and not the readers’, but it’s the reality of things. Yet people like you ASSUME shit and spout off on the boards, in emails, on other sites, or in the past in the talkbacks.

And fuck anyone who thinks they know where my heart lies.

With all that said, I am working on something that will truly change CHUD’s impact in a great way and allow us to step further forward than ever before. It’ll involve better functionality, some site staffers that enhance the spectrum, and more effort to create a more lucid experience for the readers. Believe me or don’t, but it’s the truth and once this is out of the way I will be able to finally focus on just making content. That’ll mean, for better or worse, a lot more Nunziata around here and I personally think that’s a good thing.

So, there!

As an aside, Matt… it’s always nice to see you, someone who has slept in my house and been someone I’ve tried to always be good to, especially during your “rough time” years back, writing in to offer your suggestions. Negative and I believe off the mark, but I still appreciate it. That said, I haven’t kept up with the Devin Batman rant in the least. Haven’t read it and haven’t read the posts because frankly I’d rather people comment on other stuff and spread it around. Apparently, some dickhead got so pissed by that thread that they posted my cell phone number on AICN.

Bottom line is this: CHUD is still here and though it evolves, there’s no right answer and either you as a reader has to decide if we’re worth reading, try and contribute positively, or hang on and see where it goes. I have a few major tricks still up my old Italian sleeve.

Raif Writes:

Hello?  We’re all still waiting for Derek Faraci’s review of The Dark Knight.  Surely he would bring balance to the Devin Faraci review of nit-picking and “I couldn’t tell he was fighting a dog” review.  Thank you in advance!

When is a new edition of Leak Letters coming out!?  Love it!!

Nick Replies:

Derek Faraci doesn’t write for CHUD, only piping in from time to time when his big brother needed an assist. As a result, you’ll have to settle for the two brilliant reviews the site has already run.

Winston Writes:

The last couple of weeks, Andre Dellamorte has been noticeably absent on his pre-weekend predictions.  His bi-weekly column is a highlight to read, and is definitely something I look forward to every Thursday-ish and Sunday.  Hopefully this is only a temporary change in schedule.  (By the way, he earned major kudos with a Flight of the Conchords reference a bit back)

Nick Replies:

He’s back! Have no fear!

Joe Writes:

Hope you aren’t too pissed off. I searched the site and this was the only email address I could find. I’m a big fan of the site(in spirit, not physicall, I’ve lost a lot of weight)and I read all the reviews and have been turned on to some of the best movies I’ve seen in the last three years(Old Boy and Primer coming most readily to mind). Anyway, I’ve noticed the site has started carrying book reviews, how do you choose books? I’m a writer with a book and I’m trying to get it reviewed and I’d love the chance or hope or shot in a billion of getting it reviewed by the site and was just curious about the selection process and whatnot. If if it got a Rob Zombiesque review I’d still be tickled pink, probably more so. Thanks for reading this and sorry to take up space in the wrong fucking mailbox.

Nick Replies:

We do book reviews whenever we can and don’t really have a dedicated book reviewer, though Cameron Hughes pops in from time to time (although not for a long while) with them. If you have a book you want us to review, by all means send it along!

Chip Writes:

One of the contributors to your website, Brian Thompson, posted a blog yesterday with content that included comments about me and my work.

At the close of his blog, he makes what can certainly be considered a threat against me.

I have contacted the authorities to advise them of this potential threat.

Nick Replies:

The content of the blogs is in no way affiliated with,. except ones by site editors. Which means me, since everyoneelse has flaked on them. So, if some guy pisses you off in his blog, contact him.

Dan Writes:

Been meaning to write in for a while now, and today’s The Day the Earth Couldn’t Stand Stills forced my hand. Been a Chewer since early high school, and I think CHUD is the best site on the web, movie related or otherwise. The writing is smart and funny, and the film analysis and criticism is fantastic. And I loved the goal to start actual discussion with “You’ve Got It All Wrong”. Was sitting in a computer lab at school when a classmate peeked at the screen over my shoulder, read the headline and announced “Battle Royal is NOT overrated.” to which I responded, “Why?”, and we proceeded to have a pretty great discussion about the film. Beaks moving on certainly leaves some big shoes to fill (hell, I’m still ecstatic you got him to CHUD in the first place) but I know you guys will step it up. And finally, know that I will never tire of Mary Worth or the continuing adventures of Down’s Syndrome Vampire. Thanks for the constant awesome.

Nick Replies:

So nice to see someone mention the Mary Worth stuff (see the archive)! Losing Beaks sucks. So did losing Dave Davis and Smilin’ Jack all the greats we lost before them. The web is a fickle animal and always in flux. The benefit/curse in Beaks leaving is that I’m stepping up to do more news and stuff as evidenced by the spate of recent articles bearing my byline. We have one or two more folks planned to join the fray and I’m thrilled to see ol’ Justin Waddell doing more for CHUD. The one thing we’ve been lacking is more playful, less scathing articles and hopefully there’ll be anice balance once Russ, Devin, myself, Ian, and Justin are doing main site content on a regular basis. That’s not even considering the stuff the Creature Corner boys are doing!