>>126, >>127 Dlisted seems particularly pointer this time round, especially about Tom's PR (or woeful lack thereof).

>>128 I think this "secondary" approach could also backfire, because some interviewers will want to provoke another outburst to get the clicks. (Look how the discussion changed so quickly from the SI reviews to the Aussie and Telegraph interviews over the last day.)

>>131 It has to hurt that he went so quickly from golden boy of TNM to PR-stunt-ho, especially with pubs like the Guardian. And the Guardian's slash-and-burn review of him in Kong was probably salt in the wound.

>>129 That was a helpful comment on the CB. And that must be another stinger for him, that he doesn't have enough clout to enforce a NO list on his own. Mind you, not that it would have to have a studio PR flack at his side - if the GG video is any indication, TH seems to think he can handle any awkward situation.

>>132 What have really gotten more publicity, from what I've seen in Google results the last few days, are the GQ article and the Wash Post article dissecting the GQ one.

>>133 That's a good point about why he might be putting the blame so heavily on others. He may not even be ready yet to acknowledge to himself, let alone others, how badly he eff'd up (and is continuing to do so). Not that it would help, probably, but where the heck is Luke or TH's US agents?