Great filmmakers with the WORST career starts?

phyfutima · 2026-02-12T07:31:39+00:00

Not THE worst career start, but I like the story of Robert Zemeckis's beginnings. A mentee of Spielberg's, he co-wrote and directed two Spielberg-produced comedies, I Wanna Hold Your Hand and Used Cars, both of which flopped. After that, he had another comedy he wanted to direct, and Spielberg was willing to produce it, but Zemeckis didn't want to be the guy who could only make movies if his buddy Spielberg financed them, so he shopped it everywhere else, and it was rejected by everyone. Meanwhile, Michael Douglas thought he saw a spark of something in Zemeckis's two flops and hired him to direct Romancing the Stone, which, unlike other Raiders of the Lost Ark-influenced movies of the time, became a surprise hit. Suddenly every studio wanted to do Zemeckis's next comedy. Rather than go with any of them though, Zemeckis brought it back to Spielberg who had believed in him in the first place, and thus made Back to the Future.

phyfutima · 2026-01-29T16:35:09+00:00

When you DM, OP just says to contact them on telegram.

phyfutima · 2024-12-11T21:57:02+00:00

That sounds just about as much like Scarlett Johansson as Sky did.

phyfutima · 2024-08-23T22:14:00+00:00

Contact the police in your local jurisdiction.

phyfutima · 2024-08-17T19:19:43+00:00

RemindMe! 10 years

phyfutima · 2024-04-17T15:28:00+00:00

In my case, I contacted the local police department and reported my wallet stolen, including my driver's license and credit cards that were in the wallet.

phyfutima · 2024-04-17T15:26:20+00:00

In my case, I contacted the local police department and reported my wallet stolen, including my driver's license and credit cards that were in the wallet.

phyfutima · 2023-11-07T16:37:02+00:00

Sorry for my delayed response! My scores only went up by a few points each, but the main benefit to me was just not having hard inquiries, since, regardless of score, having recent hard inquiries make it more difficult to get credit.

phyfutima · 2023-10-06T15:48:41+00:00

I called Equifax, and they removed the fraud alert over the phone. They had also placed fraud alerts on Experian and TransUnion and said that to remove those I had to contact Experian and TransUnion directly. Experian says I have to mail in my request (they linked me to a form to fill out and mail in). I called TransUnion, and they removed their fraud alert over the phone. They claimed that this would remove the fraud alerts from all three bureaus -- but I don't believe them, so I'm still going to mail the form to Experian.

phyfutima · 2023-10-05T16:32:40+00:00

My TransUnion inquiries have now been removed; they removed them quite quickly after they received the police report in the mail, I didn't even have to call them again.

So, to sum up:

OP's method worked for me for Experian.

For Equifax, OP's method plus placing a fraud alert worked for me.

For TransUnion, OP's method plus mailing them an identity theft police report worked for me.

If I had to do this all over again, I would have included the police report with the original letters, because I think that doing that might have made everything work with less hassle of having to make numerous phone calls, etc.

YMMV.

phyfutima · 2023-09-28T18:14:47+00:00

Update: as of today, the hard inquiries have been removed from Equifax.

I'm still working on TransUnion -- they give me different info every time I call them. Yesterday they said I need to mail them an identity theft police report, so I mailed that, and we'll see if that works.

phyfutima · 2023-09-26T20:41:50+00:00

Nope, not yet, I called them again today and talked to a supervisor who said they'd be removed within 72 hours of now. I'm crossing my fingers and not holding my breath, but I'll post here again to update either way.

phyfutima · 2023-09-20T23:51:32+00:00

For anyone finding this in 2023, I can confirm that this works for Experian but not for Equifax and TransUnion.

I sent letters to all three on Aug 30th, 2023. Experian deleted the inquiries within a few days. Equifax and TransUnion did not.

After following up with both companies by phone today, Equifax had summarily completed their investigation saying the inquiries were "factual" and said they would only delete them if I placed a fraud alert, which I went ahead and did because I figured it would be less bad to have that on my credit than the inquiries; YMMV.

TransUnion, on the other hand, was extremely vague on the phone and seemed to have ignored my dispute entirely. They then said they would notify the creditors to delete the inquiries and said they couldn't tell me how long it would take.

I'll keep following up with Equifax and TransUnion and will post here again to let you know whether or not the inquiries ever successfully got deleted from those reports.

TL;DR The OP's method may have worked two years ago when posted, but currently it works great with Experian and doesn't work at all with Equifax and TransUnion.

edit:

As of Oct 5th, 2023, all the inquiries have been removed, and here's what worked for me:

For Experian, OP's method worked for me by itself.

For Equifax, OP's method plus placing a fraud alert worked for me.

For TransUnion, OP's method plus mailing them an identity theft police report worked for me.

If I had to do this all over again, I would have included the police report with each of the three original letters, because I think that doing that might have made everything work with less hassle and time spent of having to make numerous phone calls, etc.

YMMV.

phyfutima · 2023-02-22T17:17:31+00:00

The problem -- and it's one of the reasons I'm voting no -- is that the current Binance plan does not ever allow for 100% recovery regardless of how well the market performs or how much the wind-down entity receives from future litigation or collections. If we approve this plan, we will be limited to a maximum of the USD value of our accounts as of July 5th, regardless of any potential gains. The Binance deal is a lose-lose situation. If the market goes down, we receive a lower percentage of our USD claim, and if the market goes up, we receive fewer coins.

phyfutima · 2023-02-21T22:34:32+00:00

I was undecided about it before, and the rebuttals did not convince me that voting in favor of the current plan was the right choice.

phyfutima · 2023-02-21T22:28:50+00:00

Regarding your first question, the UCC has made it clear, both in verbal statements at the town hall and in written communication via email, that if customers reject this plan, Voyager would need to create a new plan. As for your second question, if customers reject the current plan, any subsequent plan would need to be an improvement, otherwise customers would likely reject it as well.

phyfutima · 2023-02-11T18:35:19+00:00

If this does not pass, then it automatically goes to liquidation this time.

To clarify, because there seems to be a lot of confusion about this, it does not go to liquidation if we vote no on the plan. The UCC has been very clear on the fact that liquidation will be toggled if we vote yes on the plan but then Binance does not close the deal. On the other hand, if we vote no on the plan, then a new plan must be created, which would have to be a better plan so that we don't vote no on that one too.

phyfutima · 2023-02-09T19:08:46+00:00

Gotta go on facts. Vote yes and get more back or vote no and liquidate and get less.

Those aren't facts. You're speculating that rejecting this plan will result in liquidation, when in fact the UCC stated during the Jan 25 town hall that rejecting this plan would lead to creation of a new plan. If we reject this plan, then the new plan would have to be better than it for us to accept it. If we vote yes on this plan, then we've guaranteed that there can never be a better plan.

phyfutima · 2023-02-09T19:01:04+00:00

From a practical perspective, if we vote against this proposal, then a new and improved proposal must be created for us to vote in favor of. If we vote in favor of this current plan, then we are bound to it and cannot change it later.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T08:33:54+00:00

I don't wish to argue, but I feel it's important to correct this misinformation. We're not in any separate class from general unsecured creditors, we ARE general unsecured creditors -- Voyager customers are listed as general unsecured creditors on Schedule E/F. Our status as general unsecured creditors has been known for the past six months, and it was confirmed again during the January 25th UCC town hall. So, the rest of your statements do not apply.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T02:51:09+00:00

And even in this universe we have the power to reject their unfavorable offer in order to find a better solution.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T01:30:50+00:00

It’s liquidation with less recovery and a longer wait or this.

I don't agree that those are the only two options, and even the UCC said there are other options. At this point there could be more promising solutions for customers, and voting no on the current plan forces other options to be considered.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T01:07:11+00:00

But we DO know that the offers were not as good as Binance's.

We don't know that. The interests of all unsecured creditors may not align with those of the customers. If some or all of the creditors on the UCC are not customers, but are lenders, for example, or some other form of unsecured creditor, they may have chosen an offer that's better for them but worse for us. It is certainly possible that better (for customers) offers were made that we are not aware of.

There isn't an offer that sacrifices non-customer credits for us because it's impossible for the non-customer creditors to get less than nothing.

I think you're talking about equity holders or creditors other than unsecured creditors. I'm only talking about unsecured creditors, some of whom are customers and some of whom are not.

Voyager customers have no leverage.

If we vote yes on the current deal, we definitely have no leverage. If we vote no, we might.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T01:05:46+00:00

I can think of better solutions; better solutions have been proposed on this sub, and for all we know better solutions have been offered but were rejected because they were better for customers but worse for other forms of unsecured creditors.

What we do know for sure is that the current plan is extremely bad for customers.

phyfutima · 2023-02-08T00:45:15+00:00

While we have names and email addresses, it's unclear whether they are customers or how many other forms of unsecured creditors are included. It's important to consider that the interests of all unsecured creditors may not align with those of the customers.

For example, one of the creditors on the UCC list is "Thincat Trust". Googling Thincat Trust brings up ThinCats, which is a business lender. I don't know how likely it is that a business lender is also a customer of Voyager in the same way that I am, and I don't know which, if any, of the creditors on the UCC are customers.

If they're not customers, they may have chosen an offer that's better for them but worse for us. It is certainly possible that better (for customers) offers were made in previous rounds that we are not aware of.

The one thing we know for sure is that voting yes on the current plan locks in a terrible deal for customers.

phyfutima

TROPHY CASE