Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

brainfreeze

brainfreeze wrote: »

What are you on?

You made up a story that seemed unbelievable due to the very public hypocritical nature of it, and when I did a quick google to verify this unbelievable story, turns out it's unbelievable as it's not true. If Jimmy Kimmel publicly berated Spacey, Trump and Weinstein and then on the exact same show invited R Kelly, with his known history, to be his musical guest right after, shaking his hand, fawning, it would be on international news. Surely such a claim would warrant a Google search to validate it considering nobody has ever heard of this? Yes?

And because you have been caught telling porkies, you default to calling me an R Kelly fan for verifying that your scenario never happened? :pac:

You don't have to invent stories to point out Hollywood hypocrisy, there is tons of legit examples. It's also makes you look a bit simple if when caught out on telling such porkies, to try and involve the user as complicit in that hypocrisy, as if the only person to question this would be an R Kelly fan.


Click and be amazed on how I got this information: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005084/#self

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=R+Kelly+imdb+self

As I said, the clip I saw may have been edited but if we are going to be using IMDB to prove something then we really are in trouble, I'm listed on IMDB as having worked on one of the biggest films of all time and while I'd love to have it's simply not true. Anyone can add or edit listings on IMDB.

Does it really matter if R Kelly was there a year ago or five, all of the allegations against him have been known about and well documented going back over a decade but Fallon and the like were happy to ignore them and have him on their shows multiple times. It's funny how when it was allegations about R. Kelly they were happy to ignore them but then when allegations are made against another person they are first in with their monologues getting the knife in.

brainfreeze

Deleted User wrote: »

going to be using IMDB to prove something then we really are in trouble

No. Stating things that are not true to make an overall point, is trouble. Why? Because reality matters.

Does it really matter if R Kelly was there a year ago or five

Yes, one is factual the other is made up nonsense. Of course it matters. Also your response to pointing this out is worrying. It means you care about perception more than facts.

"Just after the Abu Ghraib Scandal, Jimmy Fallen invited George Bush on as a special guest, getting giddy he shook his hand, as George Bush punched an Iraqi baby in the face while tap dancing!"

"That didn't happen."

"Oh Look at the George Bush fan. It doesn't matter anyway because.."

Yes it does matter. You didn't need to resort to exaggerations to make your point. There is nothing really left to say, if you don't get it, you don't get it.

Ash.J.Williams

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said, the clip I saw may have been edited but if we are going to be using IMDB to prove something then we really are in trouble, I'm listed on IMDB as having worked on one of the biggest films of all time and while I'd love to have it's simply not true. Anyone can add or edit listings on IMDB.

Does it really matter if R Kelly was there a year ago or five, all of the allegations against him have been known about and well documented going back over a decade but Fallon and the like were happy to ignore them and have him on their shows multiple times. It's funny how when it was allegations about R. Kelly they were happy to ignore them but then when allegations are made against another person they are first in with their monologues getting the knife in.

You're making no sense

Making perfect sense, as I've stated twice and will do a third time for the thick ones reading, the clip I saw may have been edited. I've said it there a third time and can repeat if you are a lil slow.

The point remains, Fallon and others who were denouncing Weinstein as soon as allegations were made were quite haply to have R Kelly on and celebrate him even after seriously allegations were levelled at him. R Kelly had numerous appearance in the show after marrying a 15 year old, sex tape with a minor and numerous accusations that he was a known abuser. No one batted an eye lid but then we have Fallon and the like slating Spacey in monologues and yet not long before welcomed R Kelly on? Is it because Kelly's victim's were African American? Why was his accusations seen as less worthy to look at?

the purple tin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

See Family Guy took a little swipe at Matt Damon with the following, is that just because of his comments a few months back or are they suggesting something is to come out maybe? MacFarlane has had a pop at a few of those accused long before any revelations of course and so certainly wouldn't be a first if they were.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4go19di8rg8

How does McFarlane know about so many of these people before anyone else does?

ceadaoin.

the purple tin wrote: »

How does McFarlane know about so many of these people before anyone else does?

Because everyone in the industry knows, McFarlane is just a bit more open about it. It's all over the internet on gossip sites, that's why I don't believe any celebrity who claims to have had no idea about any of it

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote:

How does McFarlane know about so many of these people before anyone else does?

It's not called an open secret for nothing. I assume that a lot of people saw him taking swipes years back and then started to confide in him. The Hulu show Difficult People has likewise been making pretty damning jokes about Spacey since of started years back and even Action! the one season wonder from almost two decades ago got in a few sly digs at the casting couch mentality.

the purple tin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not called an open secret for nothing. I assume that a lot of people saw him taking swipes years back and then started to confide in him. The Hulu show Difficult People has likewise been making pretty damning jokes about Spacey since of started years back and even Action! the one season wonder from almost two decades ago got in a few sly digs at the casting couch mentality.

He had James Woods playing himself on Family Guy at least twice and there was a joke about woods having sex with his teenage niece. Was McFarlane hinting at something (Woods has tried to pick up underage girls in real life) or was it just a coincidence?

the purple tin

the purple tin wrote: »

He had James Woods playing himself on Family Guy at least twice and there was a joke about woods having sex with his teenage niece. Was McFarlane hinting at something (Woods has tried to pick up underage girls in real life) or was it just a coincidence?

I don't think there is much to the Woods story, there's no doubt that he is an arsehole but I don't think he is that kind of one.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I don't think there is much to the Woods story, there's no doubt that he is an arsehole but I don't think he is that kind of one.

It's well known about woods and his preference for way younger than him girls and yes, allegedly underage ones. He started dating one girlfriend "officially" when she was 19 and he was in his 60s.


http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/armie-hammer-calls-out-james-woods-on-creepy-sexual-history.html

He defended their relationship, saying, "If you ever bought a dog what did you buy? You bought a f—ing puppy ... You don't buy a 13-year-old German shepherd. You buy a nice young puppy — what are you crazy?"

Ugh...what a creep

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote:

It's well known about woods and his preference for way younger than him girls and yes, allegedly underage ones. He started dating one girlfriend "officially" when she was 19 and he was in his 60s.

Not defending him but that there's only one story in relation to that. Big difference between 19 and underage, if you were to go after every celeb who dated a much younger woman then most of them would be in trouble.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not defending him but that there's only one story in relation to that. Big difference between 19 and underage, if you were to go after every celeb who dated a much younger woman then most of them would be in trouble.

Well apparently he has been known to hit on 16 year olds also. I don't know, 19 is pretty young, not even of legal drinking age, and with the age difference and power imbalance going on I find it creepy, especially given that he dumped the first girlfriend when she hit her mid 20s and then got with another barely out of her teens girl. He obviously has a preference. But yeah, not illegal or anything.

ceadaoin.

ceadaoin. wrote:

Well apparently he has been known to hit on 16 year olds also. I don't know, 19 is pretty young, not even of legal drinking age, and with the age difference and power imbalance going on I find it creepy, especially given that he dumped the first girlfriend when she hit her mid 20s and then got with another barely out of her teens girl. He obviously has a preference. But yeah, not illegal or anything.

He may be a scumbag and a lil creepy but nothing that has been said about him puts him anywhere near Weinstein and the like. I think that a huge issue with a lot of what happened was that any past transgression was being equated to Weinstein, Mel Gibson is still routinely compared to Weinstein and some seem to think that his drunken tirade about Jews is comparable to rape. Woods may be sleazy but there's been nothing out there that in any compares to Cosby, Weinstein or so on.

ceadaoin.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He may be a scumbag and a lil creepy but nothing that has been said about him puts him anywhere near Weinstein and the like. I think that a huge issue with a lot of what happened was that any past transgression was being equated to Weinstein, Mel Gibson is still routinely compared to Weinstein and some seem to think that his drunken tirade about Jews is comparable to rape. Woods may be sleazy but there's been nothing out there that in any compares to Cosby, Weinstein or so on.

I have read some way worse things about Gibson, so I get the feeling that it's another "open secret" and that's what the comparisons are all about.

No, there is nothing to suggest that woods' behaviour is on a level with Weinstein or Cosby but why shouldnt his creepy ways be called out?Especially when he is quick to call it out in others when it suits his political views.

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I have read some way worse things about Gibson, so I get the feeling that it's another "open secret" and that's what the comparisons are all about.

No, there is nothing to suggest that woods' behaviour is on a level with Weinstein or Cosby but why shouldnt his creepy ways be called out?Especially when he is quick to call it out in others when it suits his political views.

There was also a pretty disastrous relationship between Sean Young and James Woods. Allegations she glued his scrotum to his leg and so on.

Woods also hit on Amber Tamblyn (Joan of Arcadia) when she was 16, and knowing she was 16. He can come across as creepy, but then again, nothing on some others or whatever.

Mel Gibson I suspect has something-his dad comes from some extreme Catholic religion that views the Pope as a traitor. Especially based on his past behaviour, including beating up his ex.

HandsomeBob

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I have read some way worse things about Gibson, so I get the feeling that it's another "open secret" and that's what the comparisons are all about.

No, there is nothing to suggest that woods' behaviour is on a level with Weinstein or Cosby but why shouldnt his creepy ways be called out?Especially when he is quick to call it out in others when it suits his political views.

That Downey Jr (who comes across as one of the few thoroughly decent, even as a teen star who took other younger actors into his home to protect them) put his neck on the line in the midst of his own resurgence to ask Hollywood to forgive Gibson makes me think he really is just a man with a problem that did some bad things but not a monster. If Gibson was an utter monster we'd of heard about it by now. He doesn't have the clout to keep anything like that secret anymore.

RabbleRouser2k

HandsomeBob wrote: »

That Downey Jr (who comes across as one of the few thoroughly decent, even as a teen star who took other younger actors into his home to protect them) put his neck on the line in the midst of his own resurgence to ask Hollywood to forgive Gibson makes me think he really is just a man with a problem that did some bad things but not a monster. If Gibson was an utter monster we'd of heard about it by now. He doesn't have the clout to keep anything like that secret anymore.

When RDjr was making his third or so comeback, Gibson cast him in his adaptation of the Singing Detective. (Don't bother watching it, it's s**t) Prior to filming, Gibson had to actually pay the insurance to get Downey Jr on the film, because he was toxic at that point (Got fired from Ally McBeal cos he got caught with drugs leading to hasty rewrites for the rest of the series, was unreliable even on film sets-so if he relapsed, Gibson would pay the insurance so the studio weren't out of pocket, and then recast so the film didn't lose money).
The film was forgotten, but it marked his comeback in to actual good movies.

JP Liz V1

Jared Leto called out for liking them young by Dylan Sprouse and James Gunn

https://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00120212.html

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote:

Jared Leto called out for liking them young by Dylan Sprouse and James Gunn

Don't see the issue to be fair, he hits on women of legal age and that's an issue?

I have no doubt that Leto is a creep but if Gunn had any balls then he'd stand by his previous statements and back them up rather than apologise and then jump on this tweet for some attention. If he has something to say then he should come out and say it instead of his pathetic attempts at grabbing attention.

_Dara_

HandsomeBob wrote: »

That Downey Jr (who comes across as one of the few thoroughly decent, even as a teen star who took other younger actors into his home to protect them) put his neck on the line in the midst of his own resurgence to ask Hollywood to forgive Gibson makes me think he really is just a man with a problem that did some bad things but not a monster. If Gibson was an utter monster we'd of heard about it by now. He doesn't have the clout to keep anything like that secret anymore.

Gibson isn’t a monster, just your common-or-garden thoroughly unpleasant individual.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't see the issue to be fair, he hits on women of legal age and that's an issue?

I have no doubt that Leto is a creep but if Gunn had any balls then he'd stand by his previous statements and back them up rather than apologise and then jump on this tweet for some attention. If he has something to say then he should come out and say it instead of his pathetic attempts at grabbing attention.

Gunn hangs out with porn stars and got dumped by Jenna Fisher-he kept quiet for 20 years regarding James Toback, and yet now feels he can 'out' Leto...

Come on, Gunn-you've had one major hit film after a load of indies, and the sequel to that hit film was disappointing.
Maybe concentrate on your work and lay off the Ambien.

HandsomeBob

I wouldn't defend anyone creeping on young ones half their age but it's par for the course in entertainment I thought. Nicholson, DiCaprio, Jagger etc....

As long as they are of legal age and not being forced who cares? That said if Leto or anyone else was harassing young ones on Twitter that would be well out of order.

HandsomeBob

HandsomeBob wrote: »

I wouldn't defend anyone creeping on young ones half their age but it's par for the course in entertainment I thought. Nicholson, DiCaprio, Jagger etc....

Money rather than entertainment I would've said.

RabbleRouser2k

HandsomeBob wrote: »

I wouldn't defend anyone creeping on young ones half their age but it's par for the course in entertainment I thought. Nicholson, DiCaprio, Jagger etc....

As long as they are of legal age and not being forced who cares? That said if Leto or anyone else was harassing young ones on Twitter that would be well out of order.

I have no issue with that either-and as long as he's not forcing any girl, or being violent, then I don't see a problem.

If they are underage, then yeah, I'd have issues there. Like Jagger, Nicholson and so on date girls who are of legal age. (Yeah, there were some in the past who maybe weren't-but it was a lot harder to check that back then).

AllForIt

https://youtu.be/iX1gNTF7liM

Watched this very interesting debate last night - "has #metoo gone too far".

I though Melanie Philips contribution was spot on.

Outlaw Pete

AllForIt wrote: »

Watched this very interesting debate last night - "has #metoo gone too far".

Yeah, just listened to it earlier, Phillips was excellent. One of the few female journalists with the chutzpah today to call out a lot of those portraying themselves as victims when they're anything but. She's spot on also about how feminism is infantilizing women today and also regrading their seemingly never ending obsession with victimhood.

Baroness Helena Kennedy on the other hand just spouted all the usual guff about how women finally have a voice, how unequal pay won't be tolerated any longer, how men need to stop slapping their partners cause their dinner isn't on the table, and footballers needs to stop forcing sex on women, along along also with the usual nonsense about how poor conviction rates for those accused of rape need to be addressed, how men have all the power etc, and then she rounds it all off by saying "Isn't it shocking that there isn't a black woman on this panel" :rolleyes:

Philips of course then immediately addressed much of her nonsense but it's a huge societal game of whack-a-mole with this kind of drivel and no matter how many times people like Melanie Philips highlight the flaws in these people's logic, they will still just go on repeating it and repeating it, as the leverage it gives them is what it's all about, little else, which is why Kennedy asked for women to get angrier.

AllForIt

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yeah, just listened to it earlier, Phillips was excellent. One of the few female journalists with the chutzpah today to call out a lot of those portraying themselves as victims when they're anything but. She's spot on also about how feminism is infantilizing women today and also regrading their seemingly never ending obsession with victimhood.

Baroness Helena Kennedy on the other hand just spouted all the usual guff about how women finally have a voice, how unequal pay won't be tolerated any longer, how men need to stop slapping their partners cause their dinner isn't on the table, and footballers needs to stop forcing sex on women, along along also with the usual nonsense about how poor conviction rates for those accused of rape need to be addressed, how men have all the power etc, and then she rounds it all off by saying "Isn't it shocking that there isn't a black woman on this panel" :rolleyes:

Philips of course then immediately addressed much of her nonsense but it's a huge societal game of whack-a-mole with this kind of drivel and no matter how many times people like Melanie Philips highlight the flaws in these people's logic, they will still just go on repeating it and repeating it, as the leverage it gives them is what it's all about, little else, which is why Kennedy asked for women to get angrier.

That was the second time I've seen Phillips give a speech. She was brilliant on both occasions. Incredibly lucid coherent arguments without any waffle. Ordinary I though she was something of a hated figure without knowing much about her but based on her oratory skills, I'm a fan. I always believe if someone can deliver a speech in such a way as she did in the manner she did then that is 50% of winning an argument.

On the other hand Kennedy's and Walkers contributions were full of incoherent hyperbolic waffle. After watching it a second time what was most notable to me towards the end of the proceedings both Kennedy and Walker used a bit of emotional blackmail when the were bereft of strong points such as 'oh we're so disappointed with you'...'Come over here and join us,we'd be so happy'...'what's happened to you hahaha', met with rapturous hilarious applause in the audience. What an embarrassing tactic that was - to build new recruits to your invalid cause in a manner similar to trying to convince someone to go out the pub for a knees up when one doesn't want to go out - shure it'll be great fun. Pathetic - and this debate showed me personally the true nature of the current feminist movement.

Outlaw Pete

Jaysus, Moses, tell us what you really think. I thought what he had to say the first time he spoke out was eye opening.

A Son Speaks Out by Moses Farrow.

He paints some picture of life around the time the accusations took place, and before and after it too, and it's a far different one than Ronan and Dylan have, that's for sure.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Jaysus, Moses, tell us what you really think. I thought what he had to say the first time he spoke out was eye opening.

A Son Speaks Out by Moses Farrow.

He paints some picture of life around the time the accusations took place, and before and after it too, and it's a far different one than Ronan and Dylan have, that's for sure.

People are dismissing it as 'guess Moses really wants the Allen millions'...

No account that maybe he might be telling the truth, or at least another truth? Seems the Allen household was a messed up place.

RabbleRouser2k

Morgan Freeman now stands accused.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html