|
Gatts posted:Where do you get this out of what he said and why are you trying to paint him as bad? Because 'healthy skepticism' is how they get away with it. Look at the reaction to any story about sexual assault, and people will still bring up needing to punish false accusers. Because that's our cultural priority. Also, because we are here lumping 'a children's television producer has sexually assaulted children' with 'the president wasn't born here' in terms of plausibility Gatts posted:Wait for something to come out and don't start assuming something is true and condemn someone and fall into mob mentality to ruin lives without justification. There's a reason for a justice system and fact and accounts. Don't assume it's a bullshit conspiracy theory on a par with 'the president lies about his religion' which is what someone here did, which is what I loving responded to. I'm not leaping to 'lets lynch him' i'm stepping to 'it's more plausible than 'the president was born in a test tube' which is a comparison that two people here have made with a straight face. Gatts posted:There's weird poo poo around Nickelodeon, yeah, one doesn't have to be a genius to suspect something but don't jump the gun. I'm not. I'm reacting, again, quite specifically, to someone who dismissed it by equating it to 4chan anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
twerking on the railroad posted:What the hell happened to this thread? It got poisoned by the 'healthy skepticism' and 'we can't ruin a man's career' ideas that eventually poison all discussions about sexual assault.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Yes, I too make absolute decisions sourced from the celebrity equivalent of topix, and drat anyone for maybe thinking otherwise. Holy poo poo, can you even read?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 05:19
|
|
|
Gatts posted:There was no reason to try to paint that poster as bad and insinuate or accuse or imply what you were about them when it was not warranted. That's the problem. Two posters literally compared the Dan Schneider thing to Barack Obama birther poo poo. I didn't imply anything. That is what happened.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
Weinstein was in no way beloved. He was a strong arming lunatic who was pretty good at getting results. He was the sort of guy who'd run a campaign saying Saving Private Ryan was historically inaccurate to make sure Shakespeare in love won the Oscar. He was a lovely person, it just so happens that his style of shittiness is extremely valuable in hollywood.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:He, or she, is hell-bent on both missing my point and proving it at the same time. What the gently caress was your point? You forgot to say. You were too busy invoking birther conspiracies. Unless those were your point, in which case I got you.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:Jimmy Savile was literally loving knighted. While looking like this  Maybe the queen didn't want to judge him based on his looks or vibe.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Briefly talked to my dad the other day, and he's under the impression that a British MP resigned because he touched someone's knee. And while that would fulfill every stereotype about the british that i already believe, does anyone know what he's actually talking about?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Fart City posted:As an English grad, can confirm that writing degrees are basically competitive masturbation. gently caress, I really regret doing advertising instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2018 06:42
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:That sounds even worse. "Do your research, understand the product, your audience, and how the two relate" *repeat with minor variations for three years* Zas posted:thats a fake story sorry Songs do come in waves when you ask students to pick them. Back when I did film making in high school, about 20% of the short films made in my first year used 'Teardrop' by Massive Attack. I used French rap group 'Assassin' because I was determined to stand out. It did not work, but this song is pretty cool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCixN0s3f5A For gently caress's sake. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 29, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2018 00:19
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:It's a great example of exactly what myself and others warned about. It's actually a pretty great example of how people get away with it for so long. I mean, pictures of kids feet is about as creepy as you can get short of actual child porn, and there's still folk here going 'it's only 4chan.'
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:You know full well that what I meant was that you went from loudly and proudly proclaiming the obvious and absolute guilt of one person to insinuating that someone else had suspect motives because they didn't fall in line with you. And Lord of Booty did the same. This didn't actually happen at all. It was in this thread, so feel free to pull up the posts where I did this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 04:35
|
|
|
I vaguely remember a story about Christina Ricci sending nude photos to some director. I'm also now wondering if that was a smear campaign to make her look 'unstable' and justify working with her less. I mean, her high profile work rate has tapered of dramatically. I'm more surprised that there's someone out there who thinks 'pivdog' is a good nickname.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 22:38
|
|
|
Fart City posted:I mean, I thought I was pretty jaded when it came to the dark side of Hollywood, but what I guess I didn’t appreciate pre-Weinstein was how blatant it was. I foolishly believed that the sex-chuds were able to operate for so long because they stuck to the dark. But then read insane poo poo like Jeff Wells telling James Mangold “hey, I didn’t like your movie, but howsabout you slide me dem nudes,” and it’s just like, oh no, this kind of fuckery was on show in the goddamn lobby It's an industry that thrives on young flesh. It was going to be bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Timby posted:Ricci has been focused on raising her son. That was 2014, her work has been steadily tapering off since the early 2000s, and the 'sending nudes' story came about in 2006 or so.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Ricci doesn't seem like the type to do that, if for no other reason than she's been acting since she was a kid and already had a career, even if it did have its ups and downs. Exactly. I remember the story really clearly though. It came out when I used to read 'WWTDD.com' because I was young and thought that was a good thing to do. It just strikes me, in retrospect, as exactly the sort of story that paints an actress as 'eccentric' and justifies not working with her.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure Blade kills him in a strip club at the end of Blade 2.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
gently caress, as if, at this point 'you can be in expendables 4, no problem' is any kind of loving leverage. Crews was barely in the third. He was more keen to be on a show with Andy Samberg.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
I really hope that's something he said on a very bad day and has since realised how loving stupid it is and has done something to make up for it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2018 06:30
|
|
|
sleep with the vicious posted:hmmm...lol at the people in this thread rushing to rationalize noted weirdo quentin tarantino defending child rape because in 2002 people didn't know that raping children was wrong, or at least it was morally gray. yes thats why polanski had to flee to europe because he was wanted for arrest, because people just didn't realize it was kinda weird to drug and rape a kid. You didn't read what people said, did you?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2018 05:12
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:there was a sizable polanski defense squad in this very sub years back. not so much that what he did wasn't bad but that the judge was a big meanie for possibly rejecting the deal (which he should've done it was a poo poo deal) so he was justified in fleeing. their argument tended to be it was a one off thing but they never had a response when someone would bring up that after polanski fled to europe he started loving a 15 year old. Also, he hosed a 13 year old. If one is concerned about a judge 'making an example of you for loving a 13 year old' the problem is that you hosed a 13 year old. Like, not a single defence of Polanski actually holds any water. All of them are people working backwards, Scalia style. They can't quite reconcile that a brilliant director did something so awful, and so they perform some mental gymnastics until it's not a big deal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 01:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I think the random, gruesome murder of his wife and unborn son also feeds into some of the sympathy toward Polanski specifically. There may have been a collective feeling that, yeah, that was really hosed up and traumatizing, so maybe we cut him some slack on the rape thing. Oh, I see the mental path they've taken for every single excuse. You can see how they get to the point of arguing, for instance, that since the girl was sexually active already, why is he being singled out? Or how is it not the mother's fault? Or everybody was doing it or whatever. I can play out all the those arguments in my head. I'm like the Will Graham of terrible rape apologists. It's still hosed up, and not a single one of those excuses actually holds up.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 06:34
|
|
|
The sudden spectre or accusation of puritanism is an old reaction. This is a good response https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMfStd3v330 Not Operator posted:Is anyone else baffled by the (hollywood reporter) article that guy referenced to start that conversation, that because of MeToo and the Weinstein accusations, Hollywood might be too scared to do romance or sex in movies anymore? I thought we were already at that point. Cable TV made the idea of movies pushing that particular envelope obselete.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's been a minute since I've seen a movie as lusty and raunchy as Outlander. I'd been out of the TV loop for a few years when Spartacus hit the air. I was loving amazed at just how much sex and nudity they managed to get on that show. I mean, there was a sub plot involving a big dick, which the audience saw repeatedly.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
LesterGroans posted:This seems like some dumbshit Nancy Grace question, but: was it 9/11? Cable TV. While the movie industry dared to show a little more nipple, HBO, and later Starz, could just do whatever the gently caress they wanted. Sopranos was filled with amazingly gratuitous sex. It wasn't especially graphic, but they had so much of it, none of it ever related to the plot. And Oz had a heap of dicks before that. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Feb 9, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 00:08
|
|
|
precision posted:There was also the mass anti-smoking thing Hollywood did starting in the 90s, where only people who are "villains or European" could smoke cigarettes. Which of course just resulted in every smaller director making everyone a smoker to prove a point (see: Hal Hartley). Is that kind of like how every prestige TV show has a scene of women peeing? Because it was taboo for so very long?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 01:33
|
|
|
precision posted:I don't know but I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that trend. Orange is the New Black, Vikings, Sense8, GLOW, Love, Fargo, Mad Men...there's definitely a trend. gently caress, sometimes there's even a plot point around it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 02:13
|
|
|
On the subject, Quentin Tarantino apologised. https://www.avclub.com/quentin-tarantino-apologizes-for-his-roman-polanski-com-1822846008 Relevant bit: quote:"I want to publicly apologize to Samantha Geimer for my cavalier remarks on “The Howard Stern Show” speculating about her and the crime that was committed against her. Fifteen years later, I realize how wrong I was. Ms. Geimer WAS raped by Roman Polanski. When Howard brought up Polanski, I incorrectly played devil’s advocate in the debate for the sake of being provocative. I didn’t take Ms. Geimer’s feelings into consideration and for that I am truly sorry. It's actually a proper apology, surprisingly enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
precision posted:Good for him. As someone who's thrown up in quite a few toilets, you don't get splashback from toilets because you don't puke solid masses.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
This is the horrible thing about a movement like this. It needs a figurehead, but everyone who is able to be a figurehead is pretty likely to be badly damaged. And so we keep wondering why women who've been on the wrong end of sexual assault that went unpunished for years aren't clearheaded public speakers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Frankly the fact the Aziz Ansari was the moment it really went completely sideways. A bad date and some lovely game is not rape but somehow #MeToo takes every single level single thing and throws them all in the one-and-only rape pile, black & white with no sense of scale. This isn't what happened though, you dumb poo poo. The thread went over this about a dozen times. Even if you hadn't read the thread, if you actually read the account, you'd know that isn't what happened. And even then you don't get to decide whether someone else felt like they were raped Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Feb 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I mean, the goal, independent of the virtue or lack thereof of any one individual, is to reduce/eliminate harassment and assault in the business by making things more transparent- i.e., act like a creep, get called out on it in public- and theoretically reducing the power imbalances that exist. The way #TimesUp is organizing itself does seem like it's aware this is a systemic thing and they're targeting systems as well as calling out individuals. The idea that 'a false accusation can ruin a career' is an astonishingly resilient one, especially given it's demonstrably bullshit. Actual accusation, and sometimes convictions, don't seem to reliably ruin careers.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:21
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Yeah but feeling like you were raped might not always accompany having been sexually assaulted. I want you to think about this statement for a second.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:36
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I think he's talking about like, false memories or conflating a flashback with reality? That's an exceptionally generous reading. But look at our reactions here, you just brought up the CEO of a company that no longer exists losing an award as if that is a reason to stop or redirect this movement. As if his lost award is an injustice on a par with people being sexually assaulted. We still can't help worrying as much about the plaudits and future of men as the experiences and trauma of women. Now, before you say 'but these women don't feel sexually assaulted' you're upset at the future of the entire movement because of this incident, which is about the trauma (primarily) of women. At a point, you're not criticising poor representatives of the MeToo movement, you're just part of the chorus criticising the movement. And I doubt you consciously weighed the two (the lost award vs genuine trauma) and thought they were on a par, but you did bring it up. What on earth did you think it would contribute to the conversation if not to make some kind of equivalence?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:but I agree with Dave Chappelle If you ever find yourself agreeing with Dave Chappelle about anything regarding gender, you might want to think a little harder. It's his massive blind spot, the way race is Amy Schumer's
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:47
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:I'm talking about the ignoring of the actual women who worked there, true pioneers in tech who's experiences are being discarded. I don't care about the lost award, awards are meaningless. A bunch saying there was no trauma, there being no one from the company claiming there was trauma, there being no evidence of any trauma, just sniping from someone who wasn't there, and dismissal of the women who actually were. Of course you are. That's why you named Atari's CEO and none of the women. That's why his name appears repeatedly, alongside what he is being slandered with, and why the women who are being ignored pop up in paragraph 4. Because you're just so upset that a bunch of pioneers are being ignored. When talking about former Atari CEO Nolan Bushnell Bust Rodd posted:And the damage were highlighting is not the damage to Nolan’s career, which is negligible, but the damage to the movement itself, because it highlights exactly why we all need clearer language and stronger definitions and a better venue for justice, because otherwise it just leads to internal quibbling instead of progress. Except that you both started by talking about the damage to Nolan's career and good name. I really doubt you realise that you did. It's instinctual. It's an in built cultural response to accusations against a man: the damage it might do. For a much more extreme version, read any of the initial reporting of Brock Turner's case. You also said this. Bust Rodd posted:Yeah but feeling like you were raped might not always accompany having been sexually assaulted. Which diminishes my ability to assume the best about your intentions and take.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 01:58
|
|
|
Blazing Ownager posted:Feeling like you were raped is not rape Umm...yeah...it is. Since it's a crime determined entirely by consent, it kind of is, you dumb poo poo. "I did not consent" "Well, I think you did" Do you see the problem? Blazing Ownager posted:Only because of the amount of people standing up and calling it out as bullshit. Show your working. I think it's more to do with assholes like you deliberately misrepresenting what Ansari did, and the fact that it takes a hell of a lot for any accusation to actually do any damage. Why do people still think, against all evidence 'a single accusation can ruin everything'? It's demonstrably not true. You're also leaping from a woman who had an extremely bad drug trip (again, let's just say that's what happened and that your story isn't horseshit) to a defence of what Ansari did do, and your defence of him is largely to misrepresent what he did. Bust Rodd posted:Ok here’s a little story from my life: I believe this story. What I don't believe is extrapolating from this any kind of larger cultural response, which is what we actually do. Read any discussion on rape, there will be a whole raft of people who say the real problem is false accusations. Given the conviction rates of sexual assault, that is in no way the real problem. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Feb 10, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
jet sanchEz posted:I think the Michael Haneke article should be read before you guys judge him. Oh for gently caress's sake. The 'We couldn't make X film now' thing is just as stupid here as it is when it's used to defend homophobia and racism. Substantially dumber, since this isn't about film making. gently caress Haneke. Also, lol at invoking the middle ages, an age notoriously down on sexual violence and violence in general. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Feb 14, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 23:04
|
|
|
I was writing a lovely clickbait article at one point, and Nicholas Cage popped up. The dude owns, no poo poo, some shrunken pygmy heads and a pyrdamidal mausoleum in New Orleans.Fart City posted:It’s another sad example of how actors and actresses are seen as disposable. Frasier has been in the business for a long time, and showed the ability to deliver range from broad comedy to contemplative drama. He anchored a successful action adventure franchise. But at some point he got shuffled in the deck, and his visibility dropped. One of the most grotesque things that has come to light in a post-Weinstein world is just how real the concept of Hollywood Kingmakers is. A small group of people are able to lift careers to superstardom, and just as easily cut the legs out from under them. I remember reading that Cavill was considered for Bond around the time Casino Royale was made. Someone looked at this 23 year old and thought 'yeah, he could be James bond' and then 8 years later he's Superman. That is an absurd piece of luck. Of course, he's good looking and talented, but they all are. EDIT: while confirming that, I discovered that Dougray Scott was also considered for Bond and rejected. gently caress, dude missed out on being Bond and Wolverine. Snowman_McK fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Feb 26, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 23, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Cavill was rocking poo poo on the Tudors, he was up for pretty much every handsome white guy roll at one point. Tudors started as a show two years after Cavill was already considered for Bond. Also, that's worse for Scott. Please don't make me feel more sorry for him.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2018 23:48
|
|