The "dude" was an a-hole. Again, we in the business make too big of a deal about these types of gaffs. My wife who is in healthcare also thinks the "dude" is an a-hole. In this battle between "movie guy" and "movie star" - I don't think that "movie star" has much too worry about until, and we now are making a bigger deal of it than it really is.

Is the complete clip? Did the PR Junkie consider all of it, or did the interview not talk about the movie. It is kind of like trying to judge the Super Bowl on Monday with co-workers without watching ads.

While I wonder about this, I guess nothing really important is happening. So, I will make a note in my hand to send an e-mail to a VP.

I think we all agree that the question from Dean Richards was "100% guaranteed to come up"(however irrelevent it may now feel to the audience). The interesting point is that Mel Gibson could have dealt with it in one great answer and deliberately choose not to. Sheer arrogance or complete boredom?

I loved the end comment. This is the movies not famine relief and Dean Richards by banging on 4or5 times was asking for it.

It's as if he didn't get media trained before the interview ... or maybe he just dismissed what his publicists told him? Could be my next blog post.

@Worob
PR at Sunrise blog - worob.com

Ultimately comes down to PR preparing his client and addressing this inevitable line of questioning in the bvriefing.

Mel is also a seasoned enough actor/'professional' to understand that this is an issue he would have to address.

Frankly, I'm quite surprised Mel didn't have a better "come back" to this question since he is on his own come back trail. He's going to be asked this question for the rest of his public life whether he (or we) wants it or not.

His on-air demeanor seemed odd also. What was in that coffee cup?

Much, much ado about nothing.

Much, much ado about nothing.

Actually, Gibson got'em "ole school style." Remember the episode of West Wing where the prez did the same thing as Gibson...speaking AFTER he thought the mic was off-or did he? We're left to wonder if he knew the mic was off or not.

And he bridged away from the junior league interviewer's negatively phrased, "after all that's been said about you in the news.." question. To have answered, would have meant acknowledging guilt. But in this case, the news the interviewer was referring to was four years old.

Interviewer: 0--Gibson: 1

Here's the follow up on this story: According to a report in the Red Eye, which is the Chicago Tribune's free commuter daily, Mel Gibson wasn't calling Richards an asshole, he was calling HIS PUBLICIST an asshole.

"In a text message to KTLA on Wednesday, Gibson said his publicist was making faces at him off-camera, and the actor didn't realize he was still on air when he call him an [asshole]."

Here's the link: http://bit.ly/9FJGYV

Maybe Mel didn't know he was on-air when he said it, but I guarantee that wasn't directed at his publicist.

I've been around broadcasters and broadcasting for a long time. I'm amazed more of this doesn't see the light of day. The words that come out of the mouths of talent while on mic and on set still amazes me. And from people you'd least suspect. You know the ones with dimples and sunshine eyes on camera. Right. Mel's going to be Mel. No apologies and no upstart PR flack will change him. The interviewer couldn't take a hint and Mell let him have it when he thought the broadcast portion of the segment was over. Mel likely said that fully for the benefit of the interviewer and no one else, but I'm sure he could care less about it going viral.

Journalists are supposed to ask questions, right? The interviewer was not insulting; instead, he fluffed around the question and the rephrase. If he wanted to be a jerk, I think he would have come with a straight, pointed question. As far as Mel Gibson, every job comes with risks. As a celebrity, one of those risks is being asked about your public behavior for years to come and especially, on your first major project after the incidents.

It's interesting that we in PR are focusing on the journalist. Instead, we should focus on how to prepare clients for these situations. That's our job; let the journalist do his.

Mel Gibson "loses it?" He was great through the entire interview and at the very end lets slip the A-bomb -- almost as an aside -- and this is "losing it?" Please. And technically, this kind of questioning makes Dean Richards a douche bag, not an asshole. Just sayin.'

The publicist needs a new client!

Okay, you guys. He's right. You're all approaching Mel as intellectually opinionated assholes. As for his lack of focus, you probe into a person's most sensitive character flaw with the hope they will "flinch" colorfully is cruel and Mel's name-calling said it directly. Alcholic men trying to make amends in correcting their social behavior naturally falter when you poke at them in public. Obviously, there are no admitted ANON members in this commentary.

As far as I know, this is the first major project that Gibson has been promoting since his "problems." If Dean Richards hadn't asked those questions, I would have fired him. Those issues have continued to be in the news and the public consciousness. I also thought that Richards brought up the subject very obliquely and Gibson could have addressed it very obliquely and life would have moved on. Gibson forced the issue, asked Richards what exactly he was talking about, when everyone in the world knew what he was talking about. I came away from that thinking that Gibson wasn't sorry for any of what happened. He did the pro forma "mea culpa" so "leave me alone."

Honestly, Mel is not my favorite guy. I do think he's anti-semitic and it bugs me. But the interviewer was being a jerk and ramming it into the ground. Clearly, his publicist needed to do some practice rounds of dealing with that kind of questioning. But in the end, I thought the interviewer WAS being an a**hole, and I thought it was hilarious and very "Mel" to call him one.

Hey, what's the #1 goal of PR? To spread the word! Well, with all the hype this clip is getting, Mel (and WB) are adding viewers by the millions -- many of whom will see the film as well.

After all, you and I watched it, right?

Michael: Mel doesn't care what WB thinks either.

What freaks me out about Mel Gibson in interview situations is he seems to have trouble "acting" like himself. Voice dialects change from one sentence to the next. His face contorts. His eyes roll. He can't even look an interviewer in the eye via satellite. His tenseness is palpable. The only natural thing he said in relaxed state here was when he called Dean an A-hole, which I kind of liked because it was a glimpse of the real him and it was genuine. Not sure if Dean deserved it, but he certainly walked right into it at his own peril. Point, game, match to Gibson.

Not surprised. In my news days I interviewed him on the Brave Heart Junket. You get about five minutes with each cast member, and he spent most of that five minutes telling a fabulous joke about what Scots wear under their kilts. Sadly, little of any of it was suitable for air.

But I use it at cocktail parties all the time.

He was absolutely the nicest guy but wasn't focused on the mission.

Jay, I don't think Mel cares, but I think Warner Brothers, the company that released his latest movie, does care.

Publicists are for people who give a crap what anyone else thinks.

Seriously, do you think Mel does?

This is funny! I also thought it was really awkward how the host stood behind the corner of the TV and looked at the screen like Mel was really standing right next to him. Weird.

I agree w/Rich. Maybe it wasn't PC of him to use that word, but the guy kind of deserved it. What would you say if you had been in his shoes?

I thought Mel did an outstanding impression of Sly Stallone when he said that word. It came straight out of Rambo's mouth. But I was hoping he would call the repoter "sugart*ts" in there somewhere!

What's all this comeback nonsense? Gibson accomplished that goal long ago if he ever needed to do it to begin with. His problems never hurt his image all that much.

Rich, I suppose that subhead was a weak attempt at sarcasm. It appears it didn't come off that way.

I laughed out loud when I watched this interview. What I loved most--beside the asshole comment, of course--was his mention of the mea culpas. He said what everyone thinks--I think, at least--when celebrities apologize and go to rehab, et cetera, that they're going through the motions--or "mea culpas"--in order to make a comeback.

I suppose that brings up a larger question: Are these mea culpas really necessary? I mean, had Gibson not gone to AA, et cetera, would he still have a studio movie out that's ranked No. 2 at the box office?

Also, Mad Max is undoubtedly his best movie.

The subhead for this link on the home page says, "Maybe he needs a new publicist." Why? When a hack local TV/movie critic brings up something that happened four years ago as a way to get a rise out of Gibson and boost ratings, what else is he supposed to say? "Thank you sir, may I have another?" No way. Dean Richards is the a**hole here. Nicely done, Mel. I shall rent and watch "Bird on a Wire" to celebrate your return.