|
El Gallinero Gros posted:No it isn't. I'm pretty sure most countries don't have the ability to prosecute somebody for a crime they committed elsewhere, Dr. S.O. Feelgood posted:Yeah, despite being an awful person, Polanski still has the same legal rights as anyone else. I admit I am not an expert on French law, but it sounds pretty illegal to prosecute him in France for a crime he committed elsewhere, especially considering he’s already been prosecuted for that crime in the country where it happened. Like, you can’t just put someone under house arrest because they’re a really bad person, you have to have a legal justification. I don’t consider saying any of that to be “Polanski apologism”. The blame lies with Polanski himself and the people within Hollywood and other entertainment industries that continue to support him. You can prosecute for crimes commited elsewhere. Australia absolutely does, and we're not even a real country. When Australians head over to SE Asia to gently caress kids (which was a huge problem, and probably still is), they can be prosecuted in Australia. It's not some insane impossible scenario that no one has ever thought of before. It's also not even what's happening, since he's already been convicted. And yes, he does have rights, absolutely, but it also means that I have no loving interest in what the French artistic establishment thinks of anyone else's sexual morality, which is how all this started. banned from Starbucks posted:getting paid for your work....the shittiest of things Context is hard, apparently. Insisting on getting paid extra in the context that WE ARE loving DISCUSSING NOW is super lovely.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Fart City posted:The fact is “we don’t believe them” is a lovely reply to a sexual abuse accusation, no matter how much or how little you know about the situation. In a way, his ability to give such an off-the-cuff response without having all of the facts (or even by his own admission a cursory understanding) of the situation is just another small example of the tone-deafness surrounding harassment or abuse that men need to meditate on going forward. Wait, it's a lovely reply no matter how much you know?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
Steven Seagal Accused of Rape Following Multiple Allegations of Sexual Misconduct https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/steven-seagal-accused-rape-following-013008323.html 'Goodfellas' star Paul Sorvino: If Weinstein doesn't go to jail, 'he has to meet me, and I’ll kill that motherfvcker' https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/apos-goodfellas-apos-star-paul-185052565.html Meet Stormy Daniels, the adult-film star Trump allegedly paid $130K in hush money https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/meet-stormy-daniels-adult-film-star-trump-allegedly-paid-130k-hush-money-221148341.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Insisting on getting paid extra in the context that WE ARE loving DISCUSSING NOW is super lovely. why
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:11
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm not quite following the argument that it's Mark Wahlberg's responsibility to help the studio recoup costs after hiring a sex monster.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:14
|
|
|
Because it was an extra shoot positioned largely as a symbolic statement against abuse in Hollywood. A symbolic statement that Wahlberg insisted on being paid to make because he's a loving sociopath. He's also the highest paid actor in Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:15
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:Because it was an extra shoot positioned largely as a symbolic statement against abuse in Hollywood. A symbolic statement that Wahlberg insisted on being paid to make because he's a loving sociopath. Symbolic statement my rear end. They couldn't release the film with Spacey as a part of the main cast. Don't treat PR as canon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
What about the anonymous reports that Wahlberg used his contract's "co-star approval" clause to say that he wouldn't approve the replacement unless they paid him?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:19
|
|
|
muscles like this! posted:What about the anonymous reports that Wahlberg used his contract's "co-star approval" clause to say that he wouldn't approve the replacement unless they paid him? Good for him. Remember, every dollar that isn't going to cast and crew is going towards studio profits. He's not stealing candy from children here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
It’s fine that Wahlberg got paid and it’s lovely that Williams didn’t.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Mechafunkzilla posted:Symbolic statement my rear end. They couldn't release the film with Spacey as a part of the main cast. Don't treat PR as canon. That sort of suggests that Wahlberg didn't understand the point of the PR exercise. At best, it was a stupid thing to do. At worst, it was the action of an rear end in a top hat. Since Wahlberg has a history of being an rear end in a top hat, i'm not optimistic. Also, since Scott just replaced him unilaterally, and then told the studio, I'm not sure the studio wouldn't have tried. Also, Wahlberg made eighty-something million the other year. He's been a well paid star for decades. Don't treat 'people should be paid for their work' as canon either, especially when doing it for free would have sent a pretty strong message. Also, again, Wahlberg is a loving rear end in a top hat and has been for years. Why would anyone assume the best of him? Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Jan 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 01:24
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:That sort of suggests that Wahlberg didn't understand the point of the PR exercise. At best, it was a stupid thing to do. At worst, it was the action of an rear end in a top hat. Since Wahlberg has a history of being an rear end in a top hat, i'm not optimistic. Who is assuming the best of him? It's perfectly fine that he got paid, and Williams would have been entirely justified in asking for the same amount of money. I'm pretty sure everyone knows by now that Wahlberg is an rear end in a top hat and that he only donated it because of the backlash and he would've kept it otherwise. Donating it is still a net good, even though he only did it so he wouldn't look like a dick. It's still more money to help victims, so I'm not too upset over the whole thing. This doesn't mean I think Wahlberg is suddenly a good person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 02:07
|
|
|
It's mostly that the end result was "Wow, Mark Wahlberg got a lot of money for the reshoots and his female co-star who is just as important didn't get anything" which is a bad look. For once, not entirely his fault, but hard to care about either way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 03:51
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:He's also the highest paid actor in Hollywood. Ever wonder how he got to be the highest paid actor in Hollywood? That's how.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:33
|
|
|
https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355 Trigger warning. It's pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
Great. I officially hate every celebrity just to be prepared.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Probably a good idea. That said, I've never heard of "babe.net" and I'm only seeing this posted elsewhere on sites like daily mail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
I was briefly confused when they referred to themselves as "babe" until I realized what the name of the site was and that capitalizing proper names is the devil
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
esperterra posted:Yeah, I think it's more a strike against Williams' agent for not negotiating reshoot pay after Wahlberg's did tbh. Wahlberg himself probably wasn't all that involved in it. If it's lovely it's not entirely on him. they have the same agent
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:11
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:they have the same agent they have the same agency, completely different agent teams. same agency means basically nothing when negotiating contracts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:18
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:they have the same agent I’m pretty sure it was said earlier in this thread that they don’t have the same agent, but that their agents work for the same company. And all the reports said that as soon as Ridley Scott called Michelle Williams in for the reshoots, she offered then and there to donate all of her salary because she appreciated that they were gonna do it in the first place. That is not Wahlberg’s fault.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:20
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:they have the same agency, completely different agent teams. same agency means basically nothing when negotiating contracts. i read otherwise, that they have the same representative. but there wasn't a source for it so never mind
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I think they're just at the same agency with a different team of agents/lawyers each.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 08:36
|
|
|
This isn't an agent or agency issue. Williams claims she WAIVED her fee for returning. Wahlberg asked for more money and held up approval of Plummer unless they paid him more. Both had reshoots in their contracts. But all the returning actors decided to work for scale (Legally they have to) and Scott returned for free. It's when placed against everyone else's actions that Wahlberg comes off worse. The frustrating thing is how many people use this to talk about pay gaps in the industry etc and it's like... Well yeah, of course there are. Wahlberg is Hollywood's highest paid and has a name that's known. Williams is by far the better actor, but that's never been how it's worked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 09:29
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355 I was thinking about this. We've all been in a situation where we've misread cues and really that's alright, no one is infallible. I think everyone here might have leaned in for an unwanted kiss at one time or been on the receiving end of one. I know I have and in both situations, you feel kind of bad for it. But if you go to kiss someone and you feel instantly that they're not into it, it doesn't mean that you say Yo hold up, let me get another couple in there until you like it. Ramming your fingers down someone's throat after they're repeatedly telling you they're really not into it is disgraceful. Something in the heat of the moment can be forgiven I think, but he had plenty of time to calm down and come to his senses and he still won't let it go.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 10:03
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355 I read this, and thought "That's some Cat Person poo poo" quote:After arriving at his apartment in Manhattan on Monday evening, they exchanged small talk and drank wine. “It was white,” she said. “I didn’t get to choose and I prefer red, but it was white wine.” And then read on, and it was like, oh, it really is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:08
|
|
|
DrVenkman posted:I was thinking about this. We've all been in a situation where we've misread cues and really that's alright, no one is infallible. I think everyone here might have leaned in for an unwanted kiss at one time or been on the receiving end of one. I know I have and in both situations, you feel kind of bad for it. But if you go to kiss someone and you feel instantly that they're not into it, it doesn't mean that you say Yo hold up, let me get another couple in there until you like it. This is the thing the 'you can't even flirt anymore' crowd will never get. Mistaking social cues happens, it's awkward and we've all probably been there at some point or another. What is important is not that it happened, it is what you choose to do next. If your response is to double down and keep trying without relenting even when the person in question explicitly tells you to stop we're now well into sexual harassment/sexual assault territory and this is no longer simply about a misunderstanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 11:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:This is the thing the 'you can't even flirt anymore' crowd will never get. Mistaking social cues happens, it's awkward and we've all probably been there at some point or another. What is important is not that it happened, it is what you choose to do next. If your response is to double down and keep trying without relenting even when the person in question explicitly tells you to stop we're now well into sexual harassment/sexual assault territory and this is no longer simply about a misunderstanding. Yeah like that story with James Franco in the car getting his girlfriend to blow him kind of reads like oh he just begged her until she did it, which is something he'll need to address in himself. But with Ansari that's a very thorough pursuing of something the other person clearly has no interest in. Based on her account, it just seems to go on and on and on. I know this stuff moves so quickly so I can't remember if we covered it. But Eliza Dushku's guardian on TRUE LIES confirmed her story and at the TCA yesterday Cameron got asked about it. There wasn't a lot for him to say beyond how awful it is and how Directors can often be so ignorant to this stuff. To be fair I buy it because there are so many other people these problems would go to before it ever reached Cameron. Said if he had known there would've been "no mercy" which I do buy since he'd already attacked Weinstein at one point in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 12:42
|
|
|
I'm just speculating, but that Ansari date reads like a routine he's developed to get laid at all costs, and is probably more common than people realize. I've known guys who've done it, and women who've been subject to it, and I never buy the "misread the situation" excuse these guys claim after the fact. Either someone is being reciprocal or they're not, and it seems far more likely that they just don't give a poo poo about whether or not the other person wants it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 13:16
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:I'm just speculating, but that Ansari date reads like a routine he's developed to get laid at all costs, and is probably more common than people realize. I've known guys who've done it, and women who've been subject to it, and I never buy the "misread the situation" excuse these guys claim after the fact. Either someone is being reciprocal or they're not, and it seems far more likely that they just don't give a poo poo about whether or not the other person wants it. Oh yeah the whole thing just reads like he has a routine he runs through. They might as well have skipped the dinner date since it was clearly so perfunctory. They hadn't even finished their drinks. Also regarding Ansari: https://twitter.com/RaySiegel/status/952399300687953921 DrVenkman fucked around with this message at 13:48 on Jan 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 13:46
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:I'm just speculating, but that Ansari date reads like a routine he's developed to get laid at all costs, and is probably more common than people realize. I've known guys who've done it, and women who've been subject to it, and I never buy the "misread the situation" excuse these guys claim after the fact. Either someone is being reciprocal or they're not, and it seems far more likely that they just don't give a poo poo about whether or not the other person wants it. Yeah, pretty close to what I was thinking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
That Ansari was apparently unfazed by (probably) yet another woman being totally unenthused with his no-game advances really says it all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Is this "shove your fingers down her throat repeatedly" in some lovely PUA manual or something? Like, why would you think the 5th time's the charm, and that'll be the one that gets her motor running?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:Is this "shove your fingers down her throat repeatedly" in some lovely PUA manual or something? Like, why would you think the 5th time's the charm, and that'll be the one that gets her motor running? Yeah I really don't get that. What's this supposed to achieve?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:19
|
|
|
My first guess was that he definitely learned it from watching porn because it is absolutely a porn thing
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Yeah I really don't get that. What's this supposed to achieve? Total porn move. Don't get me wrong, there are women who love that sort of thing, but it's usually something you discover over the natural progression of a relationship, not your go-to move on the first date.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Maybe he likes to get puked on
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Jeb! Repetition posted:Wait, it's a lovely reply no matter how much you know? Yep. Indifference in the face of trauma is indefensible. Especially if you don't know the full details.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Stan Lee is a gross old man in a surprise to absolutely no one. nyuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh! not Stan Lee,anyone but Stan the man!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 17, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
I'm not ruling out dementia or something similar in his case. People can get mean when they're that old. Even my grandpa on my mom's side, a sweet sweet old farmer, got kinda nasty at the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:38
|
|