|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:It's especially gross in the context of that article, but it's sadly common for those kinds of long form interview write ups in magazines and newspapers. It'd be nice if that garbage stopped, but the writers probably see themselves as aspiring novelists and don't understand a) there's a difference between writing about fictional characters vs real people and b) there's a difference between painting a picture and being creepy and exhausting. Putting a plug like that at the end of the piece will literally be part of the conditions for granting the interview.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 06:29 |
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2024 15:56 |
kaworu posted:
|
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 09:51 |
|
Tarantino cast Emile hirsch which means he either doesn’t know what goes on inthis town or he actively seeks out “raw behavior”
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 10:19 |
|
Peaceful Anarchy posted:
Well the Brad Pitt that signed on for IG probably was a bit more desperate than the 1995 Brad Pitt. His career had floundered a bit after leaving his wife for Jolie. His image was 'the sensitive hunk that would hurt everyone except you' and publicly cheating on his SO twice in 5 years pretty much killed it. He was pretty itchy to work with Tarantino thanks to his ability to revitalize stalking careers.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 12:51 |
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Well the Brad Pitt that signed on for IG probably was a bit more desperate than the 1995 Brad Pitt. His career had floundered a bit after leaving his wife for Jolie. His image was 'the sensitive hunk that would hurt everyone except you' and publicly cheating on his SO twice in 5 years pretty much killed it. He was pretty itchy to work with Tarantino thanks to his ability to revitalize stalking careers. I don't know that most people give a poo poo about any of this, certainly not Hollywood. It's very difficult for a white male actor's career to flounder. The general thing is that on balance, Tarantino movies are very good. At the same time, the list of people who worked with Weinstein in some capacity while knowing at least something is very, very long, because at minimum it's pretty hard to avoid working on one of their productions in the almost forty years before they went under. If Harvey wasn't trying to rape you he was trying to control you by rewriting your movie to appeal more to his grotesque sensibilities, he's the template for a tyrannical studio monster. Salma Hayek more or less had to work with Harvey to get Frida made (and has some stories about it). Is she therefore a monster?
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 13:21 |
Do you really think that those two situations are comparable? Like, at all?
|
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 15:04 |
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Salma Hayek more or less had to work with Harvey to get Frida made (and has some stories about it). Is she therefore a monster? Well… yea? It’s one thing to allow yourself to be abused to further your goals. It’s another to do so in a broader context of widespread abuse, where you’re just reinforcing and facilitating the perpetuation of the process. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 16:06 |
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Well the Brad Pitt that signed on for IG probably was a bit more desperate than the 1995 Brad Pitt. His career had floundered a bit after leaving his wife for Jolie. His image was 'the sensitive hunk that would hurt everyone except you' and publicly cheating on his SO twice in 5 years pretty much killed it. He was pretty itchy to work with Tarantino thanks to his ability to revitalize stalking careers. The year before he made ig he was in Benjamin button and the year before was Babel. His career was not in a rut.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 16:56 |
|
Yeah, I'm confused about any point in time post Thelma and Louise you could accurately describe Brad Pitt as "being in a rut" career wise.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 17:05 |
|
Alhazred posted:I honestly find Tarantino's claim that he didn't know anything a little suspect. He's friends with Robert Rodriguez who not only knew about Weinstein, but openly defied him when he cast McGowan for Planet Terror. Did Rodriguez never bring it up? Yeah, he was thick as thieves with Weinstein, there's no Tarantino without Harvey Weinstein. Like hell he didn't know anything.
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 18:18 |
|
Directors and Producers from that generation were routinely caught trying to murder their lead actresses (Uma Thurman), telling them to gently caress their co-stars for better chemistry (Sharon Stone), or just destroying them psychologically (Shelley Duvall) and those things became national news and big legal cases and all of those people would go in to have gigantic massive careers after the fact. You have the most famous women in the world jumping up and down going “hey, this poo poo is hosed up!” and here we are 25-30 years later and we’re sort of kind of starting to deal with it* *or they put Weinstein in jail to put all the blame on him Epstein style so that the matter is permanently settled
|
# ? Sep 6, 2021 18:28 |
|
Alhazred posted:Do you really think that those two situations are comparable? Like, at all? Salma Hayek has to work with Weinstein (and put in a gratuitous sex scene at his request) or her passion project, Frida, doesn't get made. What is the moral choice?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 00:32 |
Sodomy Hussein posted:Salma Hayek has to work with Weinstein (and put in a gratuitous sex scene at his request) or her passion project, Frida, doesn't get made. What is the moral choice? Brad Pitt decides to work with Weinstein after his wife asked him to not work with the person who sexually assaulted her. Hayek decides also decides to work with Weinstein, without anyone telling her that Weinstein is a rapist, and is victim of sexual abuse. How are those two situasjons comparable?
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 05:06 |
|
Alhazred posted:Brad Pitt decides to work with Weinstein after his wife asked him to not work with the person who sexually assaulted her. Hayek decides also decides to work with Weinstein, without anyone telling her that Weinstein is a rapist, and is victim of sexual abuse. How are those two situasjons comparable? What we've learned about CBS, Sony, and Warner, for three examples, has not been encouraging to the idea that there exists some other more moral option to finance a film project and get it seen by people.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 05:50 |
Sodomy Hussein posted:What we've learned about CBS, Sony, and Warner, for three examples, has not been encouraging to the idea that there exists some other more moral option to finance a film project and get it seen by people.
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 05:53 |
|
Alhazred posted:What are the moral choices Hayek did, in your opinion? The point is that I doubt there is a strictly uncompromising path to take besides taking your ball, going home, and no longer being involved in the business unless you can reasonably verify the integrity of everyone you're working with before the fact. Whether it's moral is really beside the point, there's a morality in fighting to get Frida made.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 06:02 |
Pitt was told by his wife that Weinstein had assaulted her. Instead of supporting her he chose to work with her assaulter.
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 06:22 |
|
Alhazred posted:Pitt was told by his wife that Weinstein had assaulted her. Instead of supporting her he chose to work with her assaulter. Then she married Brad. Do I win the outrage olympics event for marital dirty laundry?
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 06:33 |
|
Hussein, you are actively trying to compare getting sexually assaulted and begging your partner not to get financially involved with your assaulter with wanting to make a movie really badly and you aren’t making your point very clearly but you ARE confusing the hell out of everyone with this terrible metaphor! Hayek could have simply WAITED TO MAKE HER FUCKIN MOVIE. Like, Hayek could have just waited a few years until she became the ultra mega star//household name she would become and then pitched it to any of the other major Hollywood producers she knew instead of rushing to make an artsy movie about a famous gay lady. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 10:40 |
|
https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1435062050670194692?s=20
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 11:04 |
Sodomy Hussein posted:Then she married Brad. What does that have to do with anything?
|
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 12:10 |
|
Bust Rodd posted:Hussein, you are actively trying to compare getting sexually assaulted and begging your partner not to get financially involved with your assaulter with wanting to make a movie really badly and you aren’t making your point very clearly but you ARE confusing the hell out of everyone with this terrible metaphor! Hayek could have simply WAITED TO MAKE HER FUCKIN MOVIE. Instead of making up nonsense you can just read Salma Hayek's account of the whole thing. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/13/opinion/contributors/salma-hayek-harvey-weinstein.html quote:In the 14 years that I stumbled from schoolgirl to Mexican soap star to an extra in a few American films to catching a couple of lucky breaks in “Desperado” and “Fools Rush In,” Harvey Weinstein had become the wizard of a new wave of cinema that took original content into the mainstream. At the same time, it was unimaginable for a Mexican actress to aspire to a place in Hollywood. And even though I had proven them wrong, I was still a nobody.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 14:19 |
|
Okay, so in summary she went in knowing nothing about Weinstein, but after being put through hell she so wanted to get the movie made that she put up with horrible poo poo that nobody should have ever had to put up with. Which, it shouldn't need to be reiterated, is not at all comparable to Brad Pitt working with Weinstein. Do you think Weinstein tried to assault Brad Pitt or take his role away from him if he didn't blow Weinstein or give him a body massage? No, Brad Pitt got to cash a paycheck from a guy who sexually assaulted his wife.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 14:26 |
|
Skwirl posted:Yeah, I'm confused about any point in time post Thelma and Louise you could accurately describe Brad Pitt as "being in a rut" career wise. I was mistaken, I remember a lot of talk at the time about it hurting his career, he went from making 2-3 movies a year in the late 90s and early 00s to maybe 1 movie a year in the back half. I did find an interview he did during the Once Upon a Time in Hollywood press tour where he said the slowdown was do to Troy bombing and his decision to take restock in his career. He said he was only going to do the movies he wanted to do and not let anyone change his mind when his decision was made. Seems pretty much in line with what Jolie said.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 15:18 |
|
So rather than continue my mistake in this thread and speculate, I did some light reading. Pitt and his production company (Plan B) gave Weinstein Killing Them Softly because The Weinstein Company won a bidding war for it. quote:Following the release of Inglourious, Pitt agreed to star in and produce an adaptation of the book Cogan’s Trade, directed by Andrew Dominik and developed by Plan B. After a heated bidding war, the distribution rights to the film were sold to The Weinstein Company, who promised a $20 million ad spend. The film, ultimately titled Killing Them Softly, was released in 2012 by Pitt and Weinstein, earning a meager $15 million stateside. https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-did-brad-pitt-do-two-harvey-weinstein-movies-after-gwyneth-paltrow-and-angelina-jolie-were-attacked The stated budget on the film is $15 million, so if we follow the widely accepted calculus of "movies cost as much to market as they do to make," basically they got the deal they needed to make their money back on it. In short, Brad can work with whoever he wants with no fear of being raped, and essentially keeps Harvey afloat by working with him. So, I apologize for escalating this into some farcical comparison between Brad and Salma Hayek yesterday, that wasn't cool.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 15:51 |
|
Jesus Christ, Hayek's account is heart-wrenching and it's horrifying to think how many movies also feature literal on-screen rape.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 16:32 |
|
Post Ironic Cereal posted:Jesus Christ, Hayek's account is heart-wrenching and it's horrifying to think how many movies also feature literal on-screen rape. A lot! Like, seriously, a LOT. Ever look up the story behind Last Tango in Paris? It's deeply upsetting!
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 16:59 |
|
Bust Rodd posted:Hussein, you are actively trying to compare getting sexually assaulted and begging your partner not to get financially involved with your assaulter with wanting to make a movie really badly and you aren’t making your point very clearly but you ARE confusing the hell out of everyone with this terrible metaphor! Hayek could have simply WAITED TO MAKE HER FUCKIN MOVIE. Is this a joke post? Because otherwise you’re just replying to a really bad take with an equally bad take.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 17:33 |
|
It's Bust Rodd.
|
# ? Sep 7, 2021 17:34 |
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1435392167095197696
|
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 11:57 |
|
Part of me wonders if Jamie embezzled millions from Britney and he's trying to desperately get away with it.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 17:47 |
|
DarkSol posted:Part of me wonders if Jamie embezzled millions from Britney and he's trying to desperately get away with it. I mean, is that even an 'if'?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 19:03 |
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I mean, is that even an 'if'? You're right. It's probably more just a matter of how much he socked away than did he sock anything away at all?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 19:12 |
|
DarkSol posted:You're right. It's probably more just a matter of how much he socked away than did he sock anything away at all? Is there any other point to treating your golden goose daughter like she needs to go into a nursing home?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 19:17 |
|
I'm surprised that Britney's side remains so combative even though Jamie's side is caving in. He definitely did some blatant rear end theft and I hope they send his rear end to jail.
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 20:09 |
|
Vegetable posted:I'm surprised that Britney's side remains so combative even though Jamie's side is caving in. He definitely did some blatant rear end theft and I hope they send his rear end to jail. Why are you surprised that she wants her pound of flesh after getting hosed by her own family for so long?
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 22:12 |
|
Yeah it’s not just about being free, it’s about getting justice for being literally enslaved for a decade
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 22:13 |
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yeah, he was thick as thieves with Weinstein, there's no Tarantino without Harvey Weinstein. Like hell he didn't know anything. He talked about it in the Joe rogan episode from not that long ago. He said everyone knew. He just didn't know it was rape versus being very "handsy inappropriate." (which is not an excuse and is still sexual assault but old school boomer types would not say it's the same so the mindset at least makes sense).
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 23:39 |
|
Tarantino is also no stranger to near constant accusations of sexual perversion, it’s really easy to imagine someone like that not wanting to draw attention to it
|
# ? Sep 8, 2021 23:41 |
|
|
# ? Apr 24, 2024 15:56 |
|
Bust Rodd posted:Tarantino is also no stranger to near constant accusations of sexual perversion, it’s really easy to imagine someone like that not wanting to draw attention to it Rumors of Tarantino making sure to work his foot fetish into his movies are much more common than serious issues surrounding how Uma Thurman almost died doing the car stuff for Kill Bill, for example. One cloud of rumors may conceal another issue. Name Change fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Sep 8, 2021 |
# ? Sep 8, 2021 23:49 |