The money guys are the easiest to ignore then when you start with the belief that they are all pretty much all fundamentally corrupted. But you of course know where I stand on that.Originally Posted by Boston Red
The money guys are the easiest to ignore then when you start with the belief that they are all pretty much all fundamentally corrupted. But you of course know where I stand on that.
“I don’t care,” Votto said of passing his friend and former teammate. “He’s in the past. Bye-bye, Jay.”
Definitely easiest to ignore. And I'm pretty sure my first post came to the same conclusion (though not necessarily "fundamentally corrupted"). I just find it interesting that someone might not pay money to see a movie because of an actor who's in it (who has basically already been paid for the role) but would not make the same decision based on the "money guys" (who are the ones actually directly affected by whether or not you pay up to see their flick).
If you're not assuming any man with power is acting horribly towards women in some fashion, you're starting from an incorrect position.
There will be exceptions, of course. Exceptions.
This is an industry with the phrase "casting couch" - it's been dirty from the start. It's horrible. We all know it's horrible. We're all going to still watch movies though. Hopefully it'll improve with this being so public, but nothing you do as a consumer is going to change the industry.
This is also why the Polanski and Woody Allen arguments don't move me much. Who do you think is clean exactly? Do you think it's just coincidence that every Hollywood actress who talks about these issues talks about how horrible it is? Or did you think they were all talking about the same person? It's systematic.
Ben Affleck put out a statement today about all this and it took less than an afternoon for someone on Twitter to find a video of him literally groping an actress on TRL. And it was played for laughs, not just then, but later on a TRL: Uncensored special.
Some day we'll all see women as human beings - hopefully soon!
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
mth123 (10-13-2017)
I was going to mention that I didn't think the porn industry just came up with that entire genre by being so creative. Definitely an open secret.
IMO, I think it's better to be a hyprocrite about which people you'll support than to be ideologically consistent about shrugging it all off when it comes to choosing what movies/TV/products you'll support.
I think it comes down to either, you watch Hollywood entertainment or you don't. I actually watch less and less, but I mean ... if Mel Gibson made a movie that was somehow tailored directly towards me (unlikely! but for argument's sake) I'm probably going to watch it. I'm a flawed human being.
I'm encouraged by the Cosby stuff and then this. I hope it means going forward people will feel safe enough to speak out. Donald Trump probably wouldn't have made it to president if he were a few decades younger, because he'd have gotten caught up in something unavoidably public and loud like this. I think the Access Hollywood thing was too late. People's opinions were too baked in by then.
I'm not sure lawyers and buyouts are going to protect guys like this as much going forward. I could be wrong.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
I could have sworn I posted something in here yesterday about this.
Anyways, it might be a moot point. Is anyone going to want to work with him if he forms a company on his own? I understand he's been expelled from the both the British and American motion picture academies (they are BAFTAs and Oscars.) Right now he's persona non grata in Hollywood. Of course the morality of Hollywood people is pretty shaky so nothing would surprise me. But it's not like he's irreplacable. If it were someone like Spielberg or Scorcese, it would be a huge artistic loss. From what I understand about producers, they green light projects and put up the money to make them. Some - like Weinstein - have put their two cents in about casting, editing (some say Weinstein was particularly heavy handed about this) and they help promote it if it is award worthy. I understand the Weinsteins have been very involved with getting their films nominated. I'm not sure bribery is the right word but they have done extensive lobbying for their movies. Now that Weinstein is no longer in power, what changes? Probably not too much artistic-wise. Hopefully things will change for the better but I'm guessing Weinstein was just one of many. I suppose we will see in the coming weeks and months on how serious Hollywood is in changing. My guess is that now that they have their scapegoat, others will continue to do what they have done in the past whether that's grabbing butts at a cocktail party or pressuring someone to sleep with them to get a role.
Obviously, there is nothing wrong with letting your moral compass direct which forms of entertainment you are willing to consume; Movies, sports, television, books, etc. consumption is often driven by the message either directly presented (ie, a Michael Moore film), or by the people participating in the entertainment (ie, Joe Mixon and the Bengals). If that is your guiding light, good for you, I fully get it, but why stop at entertainment? Certainly several of us have lived or live in housing communities that were developed by corrupt builders. I'm sure we've all driven on roads that have either been built or financed by people that have committed terrible crimes. Do we need to find a new place to live, a new route to work?
I've learned that I take my entertainment as its presented to me. For each person that is reportedly involved with something terrible, there are 2 or 3 more that never see their terrible acts reach the light of day. But I also believe, that for those 3 or 4 people, there are a hundred outstanding people working either directly or indirectly to make that piece of entertainment as enjoyable to their consumers as possible. Mel Gibson may have said and done some terrible things, but I'm not going to turn off Braveheart when it comes on TV. Alec Baldwin has said and done some terrible things, and I disagree with many of his politics, but I'm not going to turn off The Departed when it comes on TV. Bill Cosby has done some terrible things, but I'll still watch The Cosby Show when reruns come on TV. Joe Mixon did a terrible thing, but I'll still root for the Bengals.
I accept that no matter the subject, there are a handful of terrible people that are involved in some form or fashion with the matter at hand, but believe (pray) that there are many more truely outstanding people that are also involved. I can go from The Dixie Chicks to Lee Greenwood and not be turned off that each has varying differences in politics. I can root for both Joe Mixon the football player, while at the same time be disgusted at something Joe Mixon the person did (and hopefully never does again) because Joe Mixon's success on the football field is going to directly impact the success that AJ Greene has, while Joe Mixon's off the field performance does nothing to take away from the reportedly great off the field person that AJ Greene is. If there was a clear cut, line in the sand way to divide life, perhaps it would be easier, but I've yet to find it. So I'll accept my entertainment with all the strings attached, knowing that if it entertains me, enlightens me, or inspires me, I'll be happy, but if its bores me, clouds me, or angers me, I'll have no reason to go back.
Posting in the clutch since twenty ought two.
KittyDuran (10-13-2017)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.8ad3f87f1a97
Wow:
Harvey Weinstein may have been fired illegally by The Weinstein Company, a company that wrote a contract that said Weinstein could get sued over and over for sexual harassment and as long as he shelled out money, that was good enough for the Company.
TMZ is privy to Weinstein's 2015 employment contract, which says if he gets sued for sexual harassment or any other "misconduct" that results in a settlement or judgment against TWC, all Weinstein has to do is pay what the company's out, along with a fine, and he's in the clear.
According to the contract, if Weinstein "treated someone improperly in violation of the company's Code of Conduct," he must reimburse TWC for settlements or judgments. Additionally, "You [Weinstein] will pay the company liquidated damages of $250,000 for the first such instance, $500,000 for the second such instance, $750,000 for the third such instance, and $1,000,000 for each additional instance."
Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. -- Carl Sagan (Pale Blue Dot)
Rosemary's Baby is a heck of a movie.
Just went to IMDB and looked at a list of Weinstein's movies, and I can say that there is absolutely zero chance that I will never watch another one of his films.
It is on the whole probable that we continually dream, but that consciousness makes such a noise that we do not hear it. Carl Jung.
Assume for the sake of argument this goes to litigation: Usually when lawyers try to fight contractual language on public policy grounds, they don't have a prayer. In this case, they probably do. This effectively says, "you still have to pay me, even if I engage in pervasive and severe unlawful conduct." Unless the Judge is Roy Moore, this language doesn't get enforced.
Stick to your guns.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote