|
Post by JangoB on Jan 23, 2019 12:35:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 23, 2019 12:52:53 GMT
I think there's multiple sad Bryan Singer stories - and one of them is the way in which a young man's talent is curdled and warped by Hollywood. In his early career he was a rather fascinating, idiosyncratic filmmaker - a far better (and earlier) MNS and a far lesser (and earlier) Nolan who in Public Access, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil revealed a director with a clear, Hitchockian artistic vision.
Then bigger movies and bigger money beckoned and revealed his worse instincts and he slowly went........... insane. Now that isn't that simple or true of course and his story isn't that facile or direct, but Bryan Singer's life looks a lot like what Apt Pupil was............a fascination with and a descent into a kind of inescapable sickness.
In the end to discuss his movies is absurd, he is almost not a "filmmaker" at all.........his Art was a way to merely facilitate his detached descent.
I'm not sure what the effect will be but might hurt Malek weirdly, may just want to brush past the film entirely I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jan 23, 2019 14:15:29 GMT
I think it has to hurt Malek. We'll see how much. They can no longer act like they didn't know. It's not fair to him but people may have a harder time voting for a Bryan Singer film, even indirectly (Voting doesn't open for another 2 weeks).
|
|
rhodoraonline
Badass
Your Generosity Hides Something Dirtier and Meaner
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 499
|
Post by rhodoraonline on Jan 23, 2019 16:07:04 GMT
I don't see how Malek will be affected too much as far as the Academy is concerned, what with their extra passion for Vice and with at least a partial support for Dafoe.
The real question is SAG.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 23, 2019 16:10:29 GMT
MY PRECIOUS BH! NOOOOO!
|
|
|
Post by akittystang on Jan 23, 2019 16:15:41 GMT
Fuck Bryan Singer.
|
|
|
Post by mrimpossible on Jan 23, 2019 16:43:08 GMT
Why wait to release this story right after the nominations? Like I get it means more attention but still...
So is this finally the time when people wake up to the fact that Bryan Singer is a monster???
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 23, 2019 17:23:16 GMT
Why wait to release this story right after the nominations? Like I get it means more attention but still... So is this finally the time when people wake up to the fact that Bryan Singer is a monster??? I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that it took a long time to make sure that they properly covered their own butts against Singer or someone else trying to sue them. I would rather the story be something that can't be discredited than worry about the timing of it.
|
|
speeders
Based
Posts: 4,093
Likes: 2,211
|
Post by speeders on Jan 23, 2019 18:32:22 GMT
Why couldn't these fuckers post this in like November so we didn't have to endure Bohemian Rhapsody getting undeserved awards attention?
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Jan 23, 2019 18:40:36 GMT
I think there's multiple sad Bryan Singer stories - and one of them is the way in which a young man's talent is curdled and warped by Hollywood. In his early career he was a rather fascinating, idiosyncratic filmmaker - a far better (and earlier) MNS and a far lesser (and earlier) Nolan who in Public Access, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil revealed a director with a clear, Hitchockian artistic vision. Then bigger movies and bigger money beckoned and revealed his worse instincts and he slowly went........... insane. Now that isn't that simple or true of course and his story isn't that facile or direct, but Bryan Singer's life looks a lot like what Apt Pupil was............a fascination with and a descent into a kind of inescapable sickness. In the end to discuss his movies is absurd, he is almost not a "filmmaker" at all.........his Art was a way to merely facilitate his detached descent. I'm not sure what the effect will be but might hurt Malek weirdly, may just want to brush past the film entirely I suppose. jesus christ
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 23, 2019 18:45:17 GMT
I think there's multiple sad Bryan Singer stories - and one of them is the way in which a young man's talent is curdled and warped by Hollywood. In his early career he was a rather fascinating, idiosyncratic filmmaker - a far better (and earlier) MNS and a far lesser (and earlier) Nolan who in Public Access, The Usual Suspects and Apt Pupil revealed a director with a clear, Hitchockian artistic vision. Then bigger movies and bigger money beckoned and revealed his worse instincts and he slowly went........... insane. Now that isn't that simple or true of course and his story isn't that facile or direct, but Bryan Singer's life looks a lot like what Apt Pupil was............a fascination with and a descent into a kind of inescapable sickness. In the end to discuss his movies is absurd, he is almost not a "filmmaker" at all.........his Art was a way to merely facilitate his detached descent. I'm not sure what the effect will be but might hurt Malek weirdly, may just want to brush past the film entirely I suppose. jesus christ Yeah I guess to you I am Jesus Christ or Jehovah or your God. Hi Penelope.......
|
|
|
Post by bruinjoe96 on Jan 23, 2019 19:33:11 GMT
Why should Bohemian Rhapsody suffer this? Sure he "directed" it, but it's director in name only (the stupid DGA rules), and Rami Malek certainly doesn't have to suffer this either.
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Jan 23, 2019 19:35:24 GMT
Why should Bohemian Rhapsody suffer this? Sure he "directed" it, but it's director in name only (the stupid DGA rules), and Rami Malek certainly doesn't have to suffer this either. 'tis the world today. If you are on the same team, you shall suffer the same stigma.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 23, 2019 19:38:40 GMT
Why should Bohemian Rhapsody suffer this? Sure he "directed" it, but it's director in name only (the stupid DGA rules), and Rami Malek certainly doesn't have to suffer this either. The stories of Singer's indiscretions had been out there for a very long time, and much like Weinstein, I always side-eye the hell out of people who plead ignorance to it. Oh, you didn't know the stories? Joe Schmoe in Ala-fuckin'-bama knew. So the fact that people continued to give him such high-profile gigs even in the midst of the #metoo movement is definitely worth criticism. If the stories of Malek being the reason for Singer's dismissal are true, good for him for not putting up with it, but this feels like the worst kind of damage control, hiding behind Freddie Mercury's legacy as if that's an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Jan 23, 2019 20:07:42 GMT
Why should Bohemian Rhapsody suffer this? Sure he "directed" it, but it's director in name only (the stupid DGA rules), and Rami Malek certainly doesn't have to suffer this either. He directed like 80+% of it so he’s more than a director in name only. Malek is so full of shit with his “I didn’t know about the allegations when we were filming” take.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 20:12:36 GMT
Putting actors on the chopping block is getting really, really old. Malek shouldn't have to answer for Singer's crimes - they were colleagues. Nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 23, 2019 20:15:50 GMT
This story began at Esquire and would have been published at an earlier date if it weren't killed by Hearst executives.
|
|
LaraQ
Badass
English Rose
Posts: 2,299
Likes: 2,833
|
Post by LaraQ on Jan 23, 2019 21:18:28 GMT
This story began at Esquire and would have been published at an earlier date if it weren't killed by Hearst executives. Singer doesn't have the kind of power to make Hearst kill this story and it makes me wonder who exactly did make them back down, and why.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 23, 2019 22:22:37 GMT
Putting actors on the chopping block is getting really, really old. Malek shouldn't have to answer for Singer's crimes - they were colleagues. Nothing more. Malek was playing Freddie Mercury in a Freddie Mercury biopic. He knew of Singer's wrongdoing (bullshit to him being "unaware"), was in a privileged position of his involvement being what got the film fast-tracked, and did absolutely nothing. He didn't have to be the whistleblower on Singer's crimes, especially since the protection Singer had up to this point suggests there are more powerful people involved, but he could have used his star leverage to keep Singer off the film at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Jan 23, 2019 22:50:30 GMT
Putting actors on the chopping block is getting really, really old. Malek shouldn't have to answer for Singer's crimes - they were colleagues. Nothing more. Malek was playing Freddie Mercury in a Freddie Mercury biopic. He knew of Singer's wrongdoing (bullshit to him being "unaware"), was in a privileged position of his involvement being what got the film fast-tracked, and did absolutely nothing. He didn't have to be the whistleblower on Singer's crimes, especially since the protection Singer had up to this point suggests there are more powerful people involved, but he could have used his star leverage to keep Singer off the film at the very least. According to the Atlantic article, the surviving members of Queen were apparently adamant about Singer directing and the choice for Fox was to either go with him or not do the film at all... which makes me wonder why they were so insistent on Singer? Seems like a strange ultimatum.
|
|
|
Post by sirjeremy on Jan 23, 2019 22:59:33 GMT
Why should Bohemian Rhapsody suffer this? Sure he "directed" it, but it's director in name only (the stupid DGA rules), and Rami Malek certainly doesn't have to suffer this either. He directed like 80+% of it so he’s more than a director in mane only. Malek is so full of shit with his “I didn’t know about the allegations when we were filming” take. "I didn’t know much about Bryan. I think that the allegations and things were, believe it or not, honestly something I was not aware of, and that is what it is. Who knows what happens with that … but I think somehow we found a way to persevere through everything that was thrown our way." Oh fuck off, you dick. Half the world knew what a sicko Singer was, so nobody's going to believe someone in his position didn't.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jan 23, 2019 23:08:39 GMT
Malek was playing Freddie Mercury in a Freddie Mercury biopic. He knew of Singer's wrongdoing (bullshit to him being "unaware"), was in a privileged position of his involvement being what got the film fast-tracked, and did absolutely nothing. He didn't have to be the whistleblower on Singer's crimes, especially since the protection Singer had up to this point suggests there are more powerful people involved, but he could have used his star leverage to keep Singer off the film at the very least. According to the Atlantic article, the surviving members of Queen were apparently adamant about Singer directing and the choice for Fox was to either go with him or not do the film at all... which makes me wonder why they were so insistent on Singer? Seems like a strange ultimatum. Yes, it's so odd. There are directors just as good or better than Singer that wouldn't have had his baggage. He's never done a biopic before either or any kind of film about music either, so why him?
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Jan 23, 2019 23:08:49 GMT
Of fucking course Malek's win is in danger. He wouldn't be if he was a strong frontrunner with no viable options, but we have Cooper and Bale. So yeah, he's in danger. And of course he knew. I live in another country but, thanks to the internet, I've read rumors about it years ago. Hell yeah Malek didn't know.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jan 23, 2019 23:21:48 GMT
Hopefully this is finally the end of him and he never works again.
As for the Oscar stuff I think Bale would be the favorite regardless.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jan 23, 2019 23:25:42 GMT
Malek was playing Freddie Mercury in a Freddie Mercury biopic. He knew of Singer's wrongdoing (bullshit to him being "unaware"), was in a privileged position of his involvement being what got the film fast-tracked, and did absolutely nothing. He didn't have to be the whistleblower on Singer's crimes, especially since the protection Singer had up to this point suggests there are more powerful people involved, but he could have used his star leverage to keep Singer off the film at the very least. According to the Atlantic article, the surviving members of Queen were apparently adamant about Singer directing and the choice for Fox was to either go with him or not do the film at all... which makes me wonder why they were so insistent on Singer? Seems like a strange ultimatum. I'm a little skeptical of the sources talking about the supposed concerns of Snider and Watts in working with Singer, which strike me as damage control for both them and Fox as a whole. They had no trouble working with him multiple times over the years as recently as X-Men: Apocalypse which released in 2016 just a few months before Singer signed on to Bohemian Rhapsody. By deflecting the responsibility off themselves and attaching it to the surviving members of Queen, the few individuals who may be able to deny knowledge of Singer's crimes since they weren't Hollywood insiders, it protects the reputations of everyone involved. The true story of all this may not come out for some time, though.
|
|