|
Post by quetee on Jan 18, 2018 16:18:39 GMT
Another red flag in Dylan's testimony: when she says, I want to tell my truth.why use the word my. Sounds off.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jan 18, 2018 20:33:27 GMT
Because if he's not guilty, it's a pretty shitty thing to denounce a guy for something he didn't do. Paycheck donated or not. the truth will eventually come out. I'm having a hard time with the fact that moses says she lying and he's a family therapist. I doubt someone who has no desire to be part of the hollywood system would put his reputation on the line. Also, I'm having a problem with the fact that there are no other victims. Same! Though either way it seems like Dylan Farrow is messed-up either way, so I feel sorry for her. What a "crazy family".
|
|
avnermoriarti
Badass
Friends say I’ve changed. They’re right.
Posts: 2,389
Likes: 1,274
|
Post by avnermoriarti on Jan 20, 2018 18:56:00 GMT
Sooooo, Chalamet's contract doesn't prevent him to speak out against Allen linkRight now there are many actors with very different degrees of opportunism with the "I will not work with him again" declarations.... and then there's Chalamet, the guy clearly has more than two peanuts on his brain but at the end he did't fit well with anyone. At this point I'm expecting Homero Simpson's declaration by the evening, or even better Allen saying he will not work with himself ever again. Its rather opportunist that once the actors fulfilled their dream they wash their hands so easily, that's so naive. Also, the whole donation thing is a bit dumb because Allen pays the minimum to his actors, so the guy who worked with him for a day donated 900 dollars, what are they not saying how much are donating ? This is all public relationships.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 20, 2018 19:43:09 GMT
^ No offense but why does that matter?
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jan 20, 2018 19:48:36 GMT
^ No offense but why does that matter? 1. He lied about his contractual obligation, which was easily fact-checked. 2. Rather than taking a stand on one side or the other, he tried to have his cake and eat it too. He didn't immediately condemn Allen or support his own choice to work with him, and people reckon that he was doing that because he was trying to curry favor with both sides at the height of Oscar voting. Regardless of whether or not that was his intent, there are some people (i.e. those SAG winners mentioned in the article) who feel that way. I don't really think Chalamet should be raked over the coals for this or for choosing to work with Allen in the first place, but using the "contractual obligation" excuse when it was so easy to access and verify does come off a bit strange. I don't think his career or reputation will suffer over it, though.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 20, 2018 19:52:31 GMT
At the end of the day, this is about Woody Allen. People are beginning to stray away from the actual issue.
Also, he didn't lie about anything.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 20, 2018 20:05:34 GMT
I think some of these people need to be ignored honestly. They are not even all the same - and I have no beef with people protesting Woody Allen, that is their right.
But Natalie Portman said on camera "I believe Dylan" which I think means "I don't believe Woody" so if you are gonna accuse his of being a f'n child molester either have some proof or STFU. You are on camera saying "I believe Dylan" - you're a Harvard grad, explain to me how you came to that conclusion. You went beyond what you had to do so back it up.
Chalamet is not that, he is worse. He is a coward who clearly tried to portray himself one way in his own best interest. He's also moron who lost any chance he had to upset Oldman this year because older male Academy members (like Baldwin) are not going to dig his moral cowardice. That's all there is to it, he can't be talked about from a moral POV because he doesn't have one.
Same goes for Firth (moral coward) - did anyone even ask him?
The others are a different thing and haven't accused Allen like Portman afaik - Hall, etc. That to me seems the right approach because what else can you say - you want to give away your salary and not work with him again, ok, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. But don't f'n say you believe Dylan and leave it at that like that means something.
Google the words "Moses Farrow" and see how much attention HIS abuse at the hands of Mia has drawn or his POV on the case.......not much but meanwhile Timothee Chalamet's act of utter hypocrisy has drawn a ton. THAT'S sick pal, think about the next time you feel the need to cleanse your soul.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 20, 2018 20:14:32 GMT
He's also moron who lost any chance he had to upset Oldman this year because older male Academy members (like Baldwin) are not going to dig his moral cowardice. That's all there is to it, he can't be talked about from a moral POV because he doesn't have one. Lmao oh for fucks sake. Who cares what those older male Academy members think? He's still going to have a ton more opportunities to get one in the future. But you're basically saying if he sided with Allen, he would win now and never be heard from again. Plus, the "older white male' demographic is shrinking as time goes by so again who cares. He can win an Oscar without their votes.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jan 20, 2018 20:23:32 GMT
He's also moron who lost any chance he had to upset Oldman this year because older male Academy members (like Baldwin) are not going to dig his moral cowardice. That's all there is to it, he can't be talked about from a moral POV because he doesn't have one. Lmao oh for fucks sake. Who cares what those older male Academy members think? He's still going to have a ton more opportunities to get one in the future. But you're basically saying if he sided with Allen, he would win now and never be heard from again. Plus, the "older white male' demographic is shrinking as time goes by so again who cares. He can win an Oscar without their votes. Cool, if he gets one in the future he's only got 3 more to go to be even with Allen You misunderstand my point: He would not have won either way this year, but his character would look better......and if you don't think that matters, think how little the "older white male demographic" matter when for directors who will put him in his films - it's Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Bennett Miller, the Coen's, Soderbergh, Lynch, Fincher etc..........and younger non-white male demographic directors don't like moral cowards either btw. ...........and he did this to himself for no reason. It would have been different if he had a moral point. He doesn't.
|
|
doodle
New Member
Posts: 221
Likes: 29
|
Post by doodle on Jan 20, 2018 20:31:35 GMT
Lmao oh for fucks sake. Who cares what those older male Academy members think? He's still going to have a ton more opportunities to get one in the future. But you're basically saying if he sided with Allen, he would win now and never be heard from again. Plus, the "older white male' demographic is shrinking as time goes by so again who cares. He can win an Oscar without their votes. Cool, if he gets one in the future he's only got 3 more to go to be even with Allen You misunderstand my point: He would not have won either way this year, but his character would look better......and if you don't think that matters, think how little the "older white male demographic" matter when for directors who will put him in his films - it's Martin Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, Bennett Miller, the Coen's, Soderbergh, Lynch, Fincher etc..........and younger non-white male demographic directors don't like moral cowards either btw. ...........and he did this to himself for no reason. It would have been different if he had a moral point. He doesn't. His character would actually be worse if he stayed silent or sided with Allen. And you're implying that all those "older white male" directors you listed all have the same stance on Woody Allen in supporting him. We don't know most of their thoughts so you're just speaking on a hypothetical standpoint.
|
|