|
Post by Weaver Addict on Nov 11, 2017 10:34:09 GMT
I had no idea that Sarah Silverman's sister dated him. She goes on to explain that his masturbating was a habit of his: He was a gentlemanđ-he always invited me to wait outside the motel room door if I wanted. I usually did. But he made it clear the masturbating was gonna happen each morning. Naked on the bed. Sometimes I just read a book in the corner. I did not enjoy it. Fin. -------- How nice of him to give his girlfriend the heads up about what he was going to do. He should have given these other women the same courtesy before whipping it out. He need some serious help. They all do. deadline.com/2017/11/sarah-silverman-bill-maher-louis-ck-hbo-real-time-laura-silverman-1202206102/
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say Iâve changed. Theyâre right.
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 1,265
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Nov 11, 2017 10:38:23 GMT
This is the wrong way to handle this situations, in a few weeks Hollywood will be dominated by nuns and the pope and even them are not clean at all. We've all been bad humans one way or another and in the majority of the situations is the darker side, at least in art, that nourishes creativity. Art is not worth putting people in harm's way at the hands of someone with the ability to abuse their power. There's being a dick every once in a while and then there's doing this kind of stuff. As for the part about the darker side nourishing creativity, that in cases like this might make it even worse since it's using someone's own crimes for which the victims have been silenced and not received justice and using that as fodder for one's own professional gain. Also to PromNightCarrie forksforestI'll be as crystal clear as possible. My response was referred to the reactions of media in general and some of the responses here. I see that my comment was interpreted in a different way as it was intended. In any way, shape or form I support or I'm justifying the conduct of a sexual abuser/addict, predator, etc, and that we should give the person a free pass because he/she is an artists, I was dealing with the facts, this behavior is nothing new, through history, this type of conducts have influenced many artists and in many cases the final product is part of that. That's why I said it is the wrong way to handle this situations, the boycott, not being able to see art the same way again, etc. What I'm focusing on is should all that work be thrown away ( and it wasn't just C.K. case, but in general ) ? it was more a reminder of how the world works. I mean, should we also burn Caravaggio's paintings ? Honestly, I'd be shocked if someone would feel the right to do it, it's not rational thinking. We're at a transition point and we'll keep that way, things that aren't correct now can be in the future, we can check history's timeline and see it by itself, it has to do more with the value of the work, everything would be historical at one point and will give a glance of that moment in time. It's certainly hopelful to see some changes but it needs more than sjw tweeting about it, I understad the boycott, in this particular case coming from Netflix and Moretz, but to me, especially coming from a place like Hollywood that everyone wants to be part of the movement and wash their hands, to me comes off as if everyone wants to be included and accepted, and that action is like a drug. And for the victims themselves, in this day and age in particular, needs to be legal actions already before speaking up because most of them are just telling a story on facebook , is like shooting a gun to the air and "we'll see" what comes out of it, to me it comes off as if all the victims are demanding everyone's attention and pay respect to their suffering in case they're still struggling, it's Hollywood after all, to start seeing changes in a different eviroment, like politics, it will take even more years. And I don't agree with what you're saying here: As for the part about the darker side nourishing creativity, that in cases like this might make it even worse since it's using someone's own crimes for which the victims have been silenced and not received justice and using that as fodder for one's own professional gain.If we see it from a different perspective where only audiences with impeccable moral will have access to their art, cinemas, museums, libraries would be empty, I don't understand the toleration degree, if you're doing bad you're doing bad, period. A solution to me would be o call the work of X artist great ( if that's the case ), not the artist himself, art and creator should be divorced. And certainly a lot of audiences and Hollywood itself are not thinking that way, and that's a problem, one should look at the art and not the artist, is a concept that many people don't believe in, so I agree with something else you said above that I didn't quote, only nice people should be allowed to create art ? That type of people are barely artists, artists are messed up, flawed and selfish which drive them to create. This is what I was thinking about.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say Iâve changed. Theyâre right.
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 1,265
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Nov 11, 2017 10:45:05 GMT
I really don't understand the appeal of these Hollywood guys wanting to jerk off in front of people. Like at least (and this is gonna sound horrible) if you're going to sexually harass someone, why make it something you can do on your own time? I don't get it either. Why are you jerking off in front of women who don't want to see that?! Weirdo shit. All we're learning is that Hollywood is filled with so fucking many creeps! I'm glad they are being exposed. People should be able to work in an environment where they don't have to worry about being violated by these creeps just because they have clout or respected art. Trying to understand sexual conducts is a challenge, try to navigate the human sexuality, there's who likes feet, there's who likes to think about cats, there's who likes dogging, good luck with that, in cases like this power has to do a lot with it, once you're on top, what else can you have, judging these conducts is rather pointless, that's their issue.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Nov 11, 2017 18:03:03 GMT
Hello Loser Ruining Entertainment! Nah. I'm not ruining entertainment. His past stuff is still going to be there, no one's taking that away from you. Believe it or not, the world around you doesn't pander to "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH I WANNA SEE A MOOOOOOVIE". People will be persecuted for their actions, it evidently will affect their work.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Nov 11, 2017 18:14:07 GMT
I remember the days were "separate art from artist" was agreed as the common sense rational position by intellectually sound people. Wish I could pin point the moment when regressive SJW scum turned it into a debate. In his regard, that is an entirely moot argument. I agree to some extant that if we want to remain sane, we have to look past such things to appreciate films (how many movies in my collection would I have to throw out because people in them did horrible things?), but thereâs a huge difference between the likes of Polanski and Spacey, and someone like C.K. As terrible as their actions may be, I can at least look past what Polanski and Spacey did because of the sheer strength of their art, building engaging stories and characters not meant to represent them, and donât strike me as the type of people intentionally attempting to offend or dive into bad taste. On the other hand, C.K. has a habit of including such issues as part of his routines and material, and a film like âI Love You, Daddyâ releasing in a post-Weinstein epidemic (and knowing allegations leveled against him could become a talking point) is one of the most ill-timed release plans to date. And as for the argument âWell, heâs intentionally doing that in order to start conversation. Itâs just a narrative, not the actual person.â I donât think that holds up either. Letâs not forget that while C.K. is a storyteller, he is still first and foremost a comedian. And by trade, a comic typically draws their material for their routines from an autobiographical standpoint. Perhaps in an exaggerated fashion, but itâs still clear that the comic is drawing from his/her own life in order to build the story. And unlike Spacey, C.K. isnât just being handed a character that belongs to someone else, as he is single-handedly supplying all of his material to himself, and so the line between art and artist doesnât hold up, because itâs main driving force is intentionally blurring those lines. By leaning so far into these topics, *he* has unintentionally hung a lingering shadow over himself. So even if all of this completely blows over, and it turns out that none of it was true, how are we supposed to look at anything he does with fresh eyes? How are we supposed to look at his narratives without being reminded on some subconscious level of these things being brought to light? This is a super weird argument. You can not seperate the art from the artist. Polanski's films are just as informed by his personal life as C.K.'s comedy (and lets not play fools here, sex is by far one of the prime themes in Polanski's filmography). But if you're being honest the way you actually react to art is personal. You're not left cold while watching Polanski's films and then when you read his autobiography you suddenly get all the feels. You project your personal experiences on an artwork first and foremost. If the artist did something wrong matters excactly as much in any artform. Essentially art is also a form of indirect communication between you and the artist where he articulates feelings and ideas that you can relate to. In the case of Polanski's films I think they are immensely human in their portrayal of fear and paranoia. Usually today people tend to portray anyone who did something wrong as a monster immidiatly (especially in America) and people forget that they are humans (who are on one hand capable of telling us interesting things like why did they do it and are on the other hand also capable of improving as a person to not do it again). It's a way of rejection, you're rejecting/surpressing that you are also capable of horrible things. It's excactly the same as with Hitler. We make out as if this could never happen again but if we're being honest we all know it absolutely could. As we talk about it anyway: What is the best thing you could do with Hitler in an afternoon (suppose he was ressurrected from the dead from one day)? Most people would say kill him? Why? Why not talk to him (I mean this is most certainly what I would do because that would be very educative, killing him would be a mere act of destruction)? Doing horrible things is afterall very human unfortunately but we should seek to confront it instead of outward rejecting the possibility. This is what most people fear. We have these "witchhunts" because people want to feel better than the accused. If they were actually assured that they were better, they wouldn't care jackshit about it (even the macrosocial lens about surpression of women most people at their core care utterly little about - again this is unfortunately the way we are). I don't think there is a difference in still liking CK's comedy after this and still liking Polanski's films. As for me, I never cared about CK, I hardly have an idea who he even is, yet I think Polanski is a fantastic director and why shouldn't I? The point is that the work still says something. And besides that: For real these scandals are boring. Let the police and the courts do their job. I don't care jackshit about CK, why should him doing whatever he did (I didn't even read up on it) bother me now? Thousands of people do comparable or worse stuff all the time, I care about that but not about CK in particular. People just have to get real about this (but I doubt they will).
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 11, 2017 21:56:48 GMT
In his regard, that is an entirely moot argument. I agree to some extant that if we want to remain sane, we have to look past such things to appreciate films (how many movies in my collection would I have to throw out because people in them did horrible things?), but thereâs a huge difference between the likes of Polanski and Spacey, and someone like C.K. As terrible as their actions may be, I can at least look past what Polanski and Spacey did because of the sheer strength of their art, building engaging stories and characters not meant to represent them, and donât strike me as the type of people intentionally attempting to offend or dive into bad taste. On the other hand, C.K. has a habit of including such issues as part of his routines and material, and a film like âI Love You, Daddyâ releasing in a post-Weinstein epidemic (and knowing allegations leveled against him could become a talking point) is one of the most ill-timed release plans to date. And as for the argument âWell, heâs intentionally doing that in order to start conversation. Itâs just a narrative, not the actual person.â I donât think that holds up either. Letâs not forget that while C.K. is a storyteller, he is still first and foremost a comedian. And by trade, a comic typically draws their material for their routines from an autobiographical standpoint. Perhaps in an exaggerated fashion, but itâs still clear that the comic is drawing from his/her own life in order to build the story. And unlike Spacey, C.K. isnât just being handed a character that belongs to someone else, as he is single-handedly supplying all of his material to himself, and so the line between art and artist doesnât hold up, because itâs main driving force is intentionally blurring those lines. By leaning so far into these topics, *he* has unintentionally hung a lingering shadow over himself. So even if all of this completely blows over, and it turns out that none of it was true, how are we supposed to look at anything he does with fresh eyes? How are we supposed to look at his narratives without being reminded on some subconscious level of these things being brought to light? This is a super weird argument. You can not seperate the art from the artist. Polanski's films are just as informed by his personal life as C.K.'s comedy (and lets not play fools here, sex is by far one of the prime themes in Polanski's filmography). But if you're being honest the way you actually react to art is personal. You're not left cold while watching Polanski's films and then when you read his autobiography you suddenly get all the feels. You project your personal experiences on an artwork first and foremost. If the artist did something wrong matters excactly as much in any artform. Essentially art is also a form of indirect communication between you and the artist where he articulates feelings and ideas that you can relate to. In the case of Polanski's films I think they are immensely human in their portrayal of fear and paranoia. Usually today people tend to portray anyone who did something wrong as a monster immidiatly (especially in America) and people forget that they are humans (who are on one hand capable of telling us interesting things like why did they do it and are on the other hand also capable of improving as a person to not do it again). It's a way of rejection, you're rejecting/surpressing that you are also capable of horrible things. It's excactly the same as with Hitler. We make out as if this could never happen again but if we're being honest we all know it absolutely could. As we talk about it anyway: What is the best thing you could do with Hitler in an afternoon (suppose he was ressurrected from the dead from one day)? Most people would say kill him? Why? Why not talk to him (I mean this is most certainly what I would do because that would be very educative, killing him would be a mere act of destruction)? Doing horrible things is afterall very human unfortunately but we should seek to confront it instead of outward rejecting the possibility. This is what most people fear. We have these "witchhunts" because people want to feel better than the accused. If they were actually assured that they were better, they wouldn't care jackshit about it (even the macrosocial lens about surpression of women most people at their core care utterly little about - again this is unfortunately the way we are). I don't think there is a difference in still liking CK's comedy after this and still liking Polanski's films. As for me, I never cared about CK, I hardly have an idea who he even is, yet I think Polanski is a fantastic director and why shouldn't I? The point is that the work still says something. And besides that: For real these scandals are boring. Let the police and the courts do their job. I don't care jackshit about CK, why should him doing whatever he did (I didn't even read up on it) bother me now? Thousands of people do comparable or worse stuff all the time, I care about that but not about CK in particular. People just have to get real about this (but I doubt they will). EASILY the smartest, most introspective & thought-provoking comment anyone has written on this thread! But since it's so long, it will go over most people's heads...unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by PromNightCarrie on Nov 12, 2017 0:39:34 GMT
I don't find the scandals boring because I think we're understating what a watershed moment this is and how important it is that victims in an industry we care about have more of a voice at present. Of course people on the outside love to feel indignation, but I care very little about that when abusers are being stopped and victims are no longer silenced. Some of you can say "witchhunts" are going on, but so far these witchhunts seem to be targeting people actually doing the witchcraft, so to speak. That's why thus far, I'm glad to see what is happening.
Moreover, I see some of you making the argument just about art. You're worried about what this does for art. But you're not giving enough weight to the reality that Hollywood is first and foremost a business. It doesn't matter how good your art is. If what you're doing is bad for business, it will get rid of you. It's as simple as that. These public figures who have become embroiled in sex abuse scandals aren't losing contracts because Hollywood now wants to persecute all the evildoers after suddenly developing a moral backbone. It's because the backlash has been so great that it threatens business. They got Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. the fuck out of here while they have done nothing about Danny Masterson at Netflix because far more public attention was paid to the former two than the latter and hence they were much riskier business-wise.
|
|
tobias
Full Member
Posts: 824
Likes: 396
|
Post by tobias on Nov 12, 2017 4:02:02 GMT
Preface: this is more of a general comment on this entire scenario. I don't find the scandals boring because I think we're understating what a watershed moment this is and how important it is that victims in an industry we care about have more of a voice at present. Of course people on the outside love to feel indignation, but I care very little about that when abusers are being stopped and victims are no longer silenced. Some of you can say "witchhunts" are going on, but so far these witchhunts seem to be targeting people actually doing the witchcraft, so to speak. That's why thus far, I'm glad to see what is happening. Moreover, I see some of you making the argument just about art. You're worried about what this does for art. But you're not giving enough weight to the reality that Hollywood is first and foremost a business. It doesn't matter how good your art is. If what you're doing is bad for business, it will get rid of you. It's as simple as that. These public figures who have become embroiled in sex abuse scandals aren't losing contracts because Hollywood now wants to persecute all the evildoers after suddenly developing a moral backbone. It's because the backlash has been so great that it threatens business. They got Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. the fuck out of here while they have done nothing about Danny Masterson at Netflix because far more public attention was paid to the former two than the latter and hence they were much riskier business-wise. The 2nd paragraph is very true. I used "witchhunt" in quotation marks only though I do think the majority of people do not at all care about the systemic processes like I explained but almost exclusively about the gossip (and this is also how the media handles it mind you). This is especially evident in people just equating all of this with each other. I mean I read the complaints about Hoffmann for whatever reason and it was basicly just that he acted like an overtly sexual dick... towards everyone. I mean the girl that accused him, complained that she had to give him a footmassage, yet supposedly dozens of people gave Hoffmann a footmassage on set. She complained that he asked her if she had sex in the weekend, yet supposedly he asked that everyone on set (as a joke). Then he made another obscene joke and on one occasion groped at her ass multiple times when it was mutual attraction. With all due sympathy for her and for her experience of it (and from her piece on it I can perfectly understand why she in hindsight personally feels bad about it) and without defending Hoffmann's behavior (which was dickish but in absolutely no way shocking): Who's the victim at that point if you're publicly accusing someone of this after 30 years and it is equated directly with what Weinstein did? In Germany we actually had a case with such accusations that were completely untrue... guess what? The guy still lost his job, won't get it back. At this point that was a withchunt completely without quotationmarks and this "watershed" works in excactly the same manner, excactly the same reporting ethos from papers, excactly the same ethos in the public. I'm not doubting that up until now "it has hit the right people" or whatever but if it becomes a serious trend, we will with absolute certainty have collaterall damage over people that did nothing or something that might have happened but that we would not consider shocking if the next guy at work did this. I mean this is what I hate about it, the double standards. I mean I am not at all in favor of groping peoples ass without asking (and even then it is actually not clear what the situation was as Schlöndorf who directed the film tells that entire story a bit differently) and I see the power dynamics in play but at some point one has to handle this like adults and consider that groping someones ass on one occasion and nothing more 30 years ago is maybe (just maybe) not worth a news article. And with "maybe" I should say that I absolutely certainly don't think it deserves a news article. Serious question: Have more people heard about this or the impending hunger crisis in Yemen? Do more Americans hear about this than your drone programmes (which Chomsky labels the largest terrorist programme in existence) killing innocent civilians on a day by day basis (right fucking now), do more people hear and bother about this than 21.5 million people being displaced by climate change annualy? And I know the common answer: I'm diminishing the problems at hand by drawing comparissons to entirely unrelated problems. The gigantic problem is that it is not at all unrelated. There are only so many news you could possibly consume and there are only so many news you will consume. In a communist utopia (which I would be in favor of if it were possible) I would still not consider Dustin Hoffman groping someones ass 30 years ago news but I would at least be open to people discussing it. At the current point I think it's lunacy what is going on with our media, what we consider newsworthy (that is what we click) and what not (that is what we do not bother to klick). Of course "Dustin Hofmann embroiled in sexual harassment scandal" sounds a lot better than "21.5 million deplaced by climate change anually" and people would probably think "I can't change something about the people being deplaced by climate change anyway, that's just a sad reality, but Dustin Hoffman comitting sexual harrasment, that's something new and worthy of discussion". But that's utter bullcrap because the Dustin Hofmann sexual harrassment headline is the headline you have no influence over at all and the climate refugee one is the one you could in theory do a whole lot about, some of which taking almost no effort (not voting Republican), others taking a little effort (using less energy), others taking a little more (producing your own green energy) and then a whole lot (actually involving yourself in driving the change). (Note: Up until now I was mostly talking about the Hofman case which as I said is entirely different from Weinstein) I mean you made the argument about public attention yourself. What if a non public person casually does this? Couldn't an excecutive of a huge insureance (or whatever else) firm just say "Suck me or forget the job?" and nobody heard it and it never happened? And it is absolutely self evident that stuff like this happens, just like really sexual harrasment (which would make the Hoffman case look like an utter joke in comparisson) at work also happens all the time. You're a real idiot if you think it doesn't (by which I do not mean you but people in general). From my understanging it's double standards if people get worked up about all these cases but never care about it in their daily life (where they could actually do something against it in many cases). What I'm trying to line out here is that it is very seductive to fully buy into these media narratives about a giant "watershed" but it is also extremely dangerous because this kind of sensationalist media is dangerous. This kind of media is the reason 30 % of Americans do not believe in climate change and voted someone who thinks that snow in New York disproves it is. 38 % do not believe effects of global warming have already begun And yet it would only take the "21.5 million displaced by climate" headline and the UNHCR data to show the opposite. What if this was in the media all the time and gossip played a smaller role? In Europe the media landscape is different. We have gossip too (quite a bit of it comes from America but of course we are also good at producing it ourselves) but the proportion and the way stuff is covered is so different that the first time I watched American news was a cultural shock. 53 % of Americans believe That Global Warming is Caused mostly by Human Activities (http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/?est=happening&type=value&geo=county), in Germany that's 20 % more (20 % of your population are the ammount of people that voted Trump into office btw) and in Norway it's 40 % more. Are the Norwegians magicians? Obviously not. Are they less affected by being deceived through news coverage? More than likely (and we also have tremendous problems with media in Europe mind you, we are no socialist utopia full of only sane people as some people in America believe and Merkel is not "the leader of the free world"). So bottom line. I agree with the overwhelming majority of what you said. I agree with the entire 2nd parapgraph, I agree on principle that it's good if people who are abusing their positions for stuff like this get backlash for it (but again I question how honest this backlash is and I don't think it means you can no longer watch something they made), I entirely agree that the illegal actions require a court case, I agree that it up until now seems to hit people who actually did something but I disagree with the enthusiam which sounds harsh but I very honestly do think that this is a dangerous machine and that identifying oneself too much with it is more than questionable. And I stand by my honest attitude of being bored by such headlines which I think is the only sane reaction. I am on the other hand enraged by the discourse situation in society at large. The multiple grand annual celebrity scandals (which these still are) are always the bigger news than the annual UNHCR report and as opposed to most people I would consider the next big celebrity scandal (and especially this to be honest, everybody knew about people abusing their powers in such manners for ages) 100 % expected and the UNHCR report to be full of shocking news. I do think that people do right in speeking up about this and it needs public attention of some kind because the power balance is so screwed but I also think one would at many times in this current world do good in calling on ones inner skeptic to question ones place in this world right now and where it is heading: which does not mean that one should immediatly be skeptic of each new person that speaks out (because if people just outwardly disbelieve them, that would not at all do them justice) but that one should be skeptic of all that is happening and not condemn blindly based on a media headline and also question how many headlines about this are worth clicking because the acrticles that get clicked are those that get written, we all know how supply and demand works, right? Further I would suggest if one thinks it actually important (which I do) to distinguish a sensationalist news article and the blaming of specific persons for all of this and an actual discussion of the problems at large. Blaming Louis C.K. specifically for this (which further creates the solution that he is the guilty one and if only we punish him we've solved the problem) I think is entirely uninteresting and I will not participate in it (and he would as I said earlier also not interest me without this scandal). So assuming we stand on the same side (which I would think we actually do), the suggestion is simple: Try to click, share, discuss, etc. a general multidimensional news article about the situation at large but not a sensationalist piece on Louis C.K.
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say Iâve changed. Theyâre right.
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 1,265
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Nov 12, 2017 5:29:42 GMT
Ok, leaving completely out the repercussions the current actions will have in the art itself, it should be as important the people on the outside, in this case, us, as the people being accused, I'm gonna left this here if someone wants to give it a read, is a bit long, but perfectly describes what I also think is the problem with this kind of situations and speaks directly to our resoning and behavior as a society and our reaction towards this type of situations ad how much involved and committed we really are in improve a work enviroment: Moral Outrage in the Digital Age
|
|
|
Post by Leave It To Weaver on Nov 12, 2017 5:41:57 GMT
I don't find the scandals boring because I think we're understating what a watershed moment this is and how important it is that victims in an industry we care about have more of a voice at present. Of course people on the outside love to feel indignation, but I care very little about that when abusers are being stopped and victims are no longer silenced. Some of you can say "witchhunts" are going on, but so far these witchhunts seem to be targeting people actually doing the witchcraft, so to speak. That's why thus far, I'm glad to see what is happening.
Moreover, I see some of you making the argument just about art. You're worried about what this does for art. But you're not giving enough weight to the reality that Hollywood is first and foremost a business. It doesn't matter how good your art is. If what you're doing is bad for business, it will get rid of you. It's as simple as that. These public figures who have become embroiled in sex abuse scandals aren't losing contracts because Hollywood now wants to persecute all the evildoers after suddenly developing a moral backbone. It's because the backlash has been so great that it threatens business. They got Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. the fuck out of here while they have done nothing about Danny Masterson at Netflix because far more public attention was paid to the former two than the latter and hence they were much riskier business-wise. PromNightCarrie, once again you are articulating everything I am thinking and feeling. I hope that anyone who has been abused, harassed and violated will come forward and speak their truth. These mother fuckers are getting their day in court. If you find these scandals boring, click on something else.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Nov 19, 2017 21:53:27 GMT
I don't find the scandals boring because I think we're understating what a watershed moment this is and how important it is that victims in an industry we care about have more of a voice at present. Of course people on the outside love to feel indignation, but I care very little about that when abusers are being stopped and victims are no longer silenced. Some of you can say "witchhunts" are going on, but so far these witchhunts seem to be targeting people actually doing the witchcraft, so to speak. That's why thus far, I'm glad to see what is happening.
Moreover, I see some of you making the argument just about art. You're worried about what this does for art. But you're not giving enough weight to the reality that Hollywood is first and foremost a business. It doesn't matter how good your art is. If what you're doing is bad for business, it will get rid of you. It's as simple as that. These public figures who have become embroiled in sex abuse scandals aren't losing contracts because Hollywood now wants to persecute all the evildoers after suddenly developing a moral backbone. It's because the backlash has been so great that it threatens business. They got Kevin Spacey and Louis C.K. the fuck out of here while they have done nothing about Danny Masterson at Netflix because far more public attention was paid to the former two than the latter and hence they were much riskier business-wise. PromNightCarrie, once again you are articulating everything I am thinking and feeling. I hope that anyone who has been abused, harassed and violated will come forward and speak their truth. These mother fuckers are getting their day in court. If you find these scandals boring, click on something else. Or...we can express how boring many of these "scandals" are. Don't tell me how to react to self-righteous posturing.
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Jan 9, 2018 0:09:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Jan 9, 2018 1:01:20 GMT
He'll be back in 2 or 3 years tops. Maybe Mel Gibson can give him tips about where to spend his "Celebrity Exile" sentence before he makes his return.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 5, 2022 10:26:39 GMT
You know who's the worst person on this board?.......it's.........pacinoyes......dude thinks you should pray (first) when kids get shot - what a weirdo, huh?......he still likes Dave Chappelle's work AND Ricky Gervais' work, loves the films of Roman Polanski and Woody Allen, thinks "Karen" was / is a (mildly) racist term (it still is thx4asking), sometimes defends Jeffrey Wells AND World of Reel's websites (um)....... AND he saw ........Top Gun Maverick and...... thought it was.........modestly enjoyable and doesn't particularly give af if the movie gets nodded for BP and even less that Tom Cruise may get an honorary Oscar one day New trailer.........movie in July if it would play near you that is......I bet you pacinoyes is there on the first day.......typical.......very Woody Allen-ish trailer .......typical, again
|
|