Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people all that surprised about NBC? We're seeing the corruption that happened throughout the decades long abuse that Saville carried out, but on a larger scale.

Saturday Night Live (on NBC) also cut jokes that were supposed to be on about Weinstein. When the producer of the show was asked why the jokes were removed, he said something like "It's a New York thing".

NBC also reported the news about Weinstein after it broke, but spent far less time on it than any other station.

Neyite

cnocbui wrote: »

Once again, you can't put in a contract a clause absolving you from the law. Nothing illegal can hold up legally in Hollywood!

A studio can't put in a clause absolving itself of responsibility for the behaviour of A towards B, if the law would considered that they have a duty of care towards B. When Marlon Brando was anally raping Maria Schneider on set, if she had screamed 'stop filming, he's raping me, help!' and no one did anything to intervene, it wouldn't matter what any contracts said, the studio would have been liable no matter what any contract said.

You've just proved my point.

On a set full of folk, nobody spoke. The director and the A-lister conspired to go off script and do that to a young girl starting out in film. She was sexually assaulted. A room full of folk who stood by and watched it happen. Saw her in the aftermath of that scene, witnessed her distress and shock?

And where was the duty of care and the flurry of contracts being brought out and Marlon Brando kicked off the set and arrested along with the fcuker who told him to do it. Oh wait. Guess the lawyers must have been off that day.

The studio's duty of care, as it always was and still is, was to the money. To the big named star. To the Art. The director probably got praised for his innovativeness in getting such a realistic reaction from a young actress in her first big movie role. The art and the money is all that matters.

Shurimgreat

Is it not a crime to expose yourself to someone without their consent, whether it is on the street or in a hotel room?

The fact is Weinstein was a serial exposer. At minimum he should be put on a sex offenders list.

But this being Hollywood where everyone is friends, he will get off.

optogirl

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Is it not a crime to expose yourself to someone without their consent, whether it is on the street or in a hotel room?

The fact is Weinstein was a serial exposer. At minimum he should be put on a sex offenders list.

But this being Hollywood where everyone is friends, he will get off.

That's a minefield aswell - the amount of women I work with who use dating apps & have been sent unsolicited d*ck pics - it's unbelievable. I feel like I'm being a prudish oul one when I think these people should be reported to the police.

kunst nugget

Shurimgreat wrote: »

But this being Hollywood where everyone is friends, he will get off.

Everyone is friends if you can benefit their career - association with Weinstein will be a hindrance from now on given the amount of stories spewing out now and nobody will want him anywhere near them. He'll be the sacrificial lamb, prosecuted to show the world how Hollywood is now changing its ways but the same old shít will still keep happening under the surface.

tomwaterford

Wibbs wrote: »

There's another angle too. What if Weinstein rather than trying to succeed in his sleaziness instead got off on being rejected?

Then he'd have moved to ireland and frequented nightclubs?


Overweight ould lads don't do well there I'd imagine?

retro:electro

Christoph Waltz was on tv there said the situation was blatantly obvious in the industry and that Harvey was "one of the biggest players". One of the biggest players- a lot of leakage in that sentence.
I got the impression he knew more than he wanted to say- but he said he didn't want to be "just another celeb to add his opinion to the mix".
It's also worth noting that Waltz is extremely good friends with Tarantino- maybe a reason behind wanting to keep his opinion restrained.

al87987

Weinsteins a creep and the paedophilia talk around Hollywood is awful.

I think Ben Affleck has been treated harshly though, I wouldn't consider that "grope" to be anything worth mentioning really.

How anyone can take serious offense at Jason Momoa's rape comment when talking about a fantasy tv show is also mind boggling.

False equivalencies to talk about these trivial matters when discussing real rape/sexual assault allegations in the same thread

JupiterKid

Utterly disgusting and I'm frankly not surprised. It's not called the "casting couch" for nothing. And there are many big Hollywood celebs who defend child sex offender Roman Polanski to this day.

I very much doubt Weinstein is the only one. Hollywood I'd say is awash with sex predators and young women -and men - desperate to get a break who will do anything to do so. And child actors too - Jesus.

The hypocrisy in Hollywood is almost unbelievable. And does anyone remember convicted Hollywood madam Heidi Fleiss? She allegedly had an infamous black book of A listers who availed of the services of the prostitutes she pimped out but she never spilled the beans after being jailed. Funny that. I wonder who silenced her to protect some very big names?

cnocbui

Neyite wrote: »

You've just proved my point.

On a set full of folk, nobody spoke. The director and the A-lister conspired to go off script and do that to a young girl starting out in film. She was sexually assaulted. A room full of folk who stood by and watched it happen. Saw her in the aftermath of that scene, witnessed her distress and shock?

And where was the duty of care and the flurry of contracts being brought out and Marlon Brando kicked off the set and arrested along with the fcuker who told him to do it. Oh wait. Guess the lawyers must have been off that day.

The studio's duty of care, as it always was and still is, was to the money. To the big named star. To the Art. The director probably got praised for his innovativeness in getting such a realistic reaction from a young actress in her first big movie role. The art and the money is all that matters.

As I understand it, only three people knew what happened, so there goes your roomful of people. We were talking legalities, not morals. Maria Schriver should have spoken up and gone to the police. She went along with it to the point the scene was used in the final film. The fact that she did not is the reason Brando wasn't arrested and legal consequences didn't ensue.

I was only arguing the notion that a contract can prevent legal action or protect from legal action where criminal behaviour is involved. I have no issue with the notion that money can shut mouths, buy silence, adversely influence moral behaviour and so protect people from legal consequences and would agree that that is clearly the case, but all that has nothing to do with what is written in contracts.

Wibbs

optogirl wrote: »

That's a minefield aswell - the amount of women I work with who use dating apps & have been sent unsolicited d*ck pics - it's unbelievable.

Unbelievable alright. I just don't get the "logic" of the utter moron who who thinks I know I'll send her a dick pic, that'll work. Beggars belief.

JupiterKid wrote: »

Utterly disgusting and I'm frankly not surprised. It's not called the "casting couch" for nothing. And there are many big Hollywood celebs who defend child sex offender Roman Polanski to this day.

I very much doubt Weinstein is the only one. Hollywood I'd say is awash with sex predators and young women -and men - desperate to get a break who will do anything to do so. And child actors too - Jesus.

+ though I'd change one bit JK, drug pushing, child rapist and buggerer Roman Polanski. And it wasn't the only time. Two other women have come forward accusing him of sexual abuse when they were also barely in their teens. He likes them young...

strandroad

anna080 wrote: »

Christoph Waltz was on tv there said the situation was blatantly obvious in the industry and that Harvey was "one of the biggest players". One of the biggest players- a lot of leakage in that sentence.
I got the impression he knew more than he wanted to say- but he said he didn't want to be "just another celeb to add his opinion to the mix".
It's also worth noting that Waltz is extremely good friends with Tarantino- maybe a reason behind wanting to keep his opinion restrained.

I think this entire "who knew what" thing is a distraction. They all knew something I'm sure (so some stars should just shut it... of course they did), but as a third party to know and to have something that is actually actionable are two different things.

If I work for a company and through the grapevine I know an executive is molesting other employees what is that *I* can do exactly? I can only support them, or connect them if I know of many, but even if it's a friend I can't make anyone report anything and I can't bring my grapevine allegations or they'll sue me into oblivion. I can walk out myself but a) no one cares, I'm replaceable b) every other company has a bunch of perverts up there too.

It's not like he was the only one either, I'm sure every celeb could name a few reputed molesters, teen orgy hosts, domestic abusers, drink drivers etc. Unless you're a victim yourself there's not much you can do, the impunity is systemic and cultural. Not just in Hollywood, think Wall Street, Catholic Church, Scientology... The best they could do would be to donate towards McGowan's legal costs, and maybe they did for all we know.

The only thing that works is to believe the actual victims and support them so that predatory culture can be destroyed through their testimony. So hopefully this is happening in this case and they all take him to court as he deserves, and others follow. But then Fox molesters only lost their jobs; 60+ victims came out against Bill Cosby and he's still free and sitting on a pile of money so who knows. Victim blaming is a thing. What would George Hook have to say about all these women who went up to someone's hotel room?

retro:electro

strandroad wrote: »

I think this entire "who knew what" thing is a distraction. They all knew something I'm sure (so some stars should just shut it... of course they did), but as a third party to know and to have something that is actually actionable are two different things.

If I work for a company and through the grapevine I know an executive is molesting other employees what is that *I* can do exactly? I can only support them, or connect them if I know of many, but even if it's a friend I can't make anyone report anything and I can't bring my grapevine allegations or they'll sue me into oblivion. I can walk out myself but a) no one cares, I'm replaceable b) every other company has a bunch of perverts up there too.

It's not like he was the only one either, I'm sure every celeb could name a few reputed molesters, teen orgy hosts, domestic abusers, drink drivers etc. Unless you're a victim yourself there's not much you can do, the impunity is systemic and cultural. Not just in Hollywood, think Wall Street, Catholic Church, Scientology... The best they could do would be to donate towards McGowan's legal costs, and maybe they did for all we know.

The only thing that works is to believe the actual victims and support them so that predatory culture can be destroyed through their testimony. So hopefully this is happening in this case and they all take him to court as he deserves, and others follow. But then Fox molesters only lost their jobs; 60+ victims came out against Bill Cosby and he's still free and sitting on a pile of money so who knows. Victim blaming is a thing. What would George Hook have to say about all these women who went up to someone's hotel room?

I agree with you- but there is a whole cohort of actresses and actors who are now speaking up and asserting their opinion, while finger wagging at the general public; all while they happily stayed silent for decades about this.

There are so many prominent actress's speaking up now who have had careers for decades, and if they voiced their concerns collectively, would have had some social sway and could have started something. What is the point in coming out now, talking about "toxic masculinity" and the like, and encouraging Joan soap at home to be vocal about abuse, when they- some of the most powerful and prominent personalities in the world- couldn't even manage to do it in their own workplace? Emma Thompson came out last night and basically threw the problem into our back yard- sorry Emma but this one is on you, not us.

The way I see it is there are genuine victims here. The ones who were abused, sued, and had stagnant careers and as a result became powerless. But there is also a whole faction of the industry who were happy enough to continue on knowing what they know, and it's only now when it has all become public knowledge that they feel they have a duty to speak out and lecture us at home. Of course it's easier for some to say they didn't know, but we all know that isn't true.
Even later when some of the actresses were huge names, they had made it- and wanted for nothing- they STILL stayed silent, knowing what he was doing to other women. I am not at all impressed by that.

Malayalam

Professor of Cognitive Sciences, Dr Tjeerd Andringa of Groningen University, came out several years ago expanding on an idea called ''Kakistocracy'' or ''rule by the worst'', a rule which is underpinned by sexual abuse and specifically the manipulation (blackmail) of persons who have been controlled by being caught or observed or recorded in sexually compromising situations. Andringa generally looks at the political elite in terms of the kakistocracy, but Hollywood and the big media influencers wield as much (if not more) power in real terms in our world, and maintaining a kakistocracy is one way to hold close reins on power. I feel kakistocracy pervades Hollywood.
Of course most people think that is 'conspiracy theory'. :rolleyes:

Edit - Sorry I fail to properly embed (yet again!)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGf4OClXggI&t=83s

sbsquarepants

anna080 wrote: »

Even later when some of the actresses were huge names, they had made it- and wanted for nothing- they STILL stayed silent, knowing what he was doing to other women. I am not at all impressed by that.

Me either - but people are people, maybe they didn't want it to be known about them, maybe they had put it behind them and didn't want it dragged up. They are just actors - it's not really up to them to save the world, like everyone else, they need to look out for themselves first and foremost.

Now that the damn has broke and others are coming forward it makes it easier and the whole thing snowballs. The only real difference between a Hollywood A lister and a Hollyhead ferry terminal worker is the pay packet.

At the end of the day better late than never I think.

Outlaw Pete

optogirl wrote: »

I can see how you would read it like this but the truth is that most women have experienced sexual harassment, several times in their lifetime and it usually starts by being catcalled & whistled at when we are about 13. The Weinstein revelations are just not that shocking to women unfortunately. There's a sad air of 'Yup, that's the sh*t that goes on' about it.

How does any of that excuse referring to what Weinstein did as being "extreme masculinity"? It doesn't, given that it has nothing to do with it. No more than female teachers raping children is a extreme femininity problem. Nothing you said negates that point. Sick to back teeth of this toxic masculinity problem bullshit.

strandroad

anna080 wrote: »

There are so many prominent actress's speaking up now who have had careers for decades, and if they voiced their concerns collectively, would have had some social sway and could have started something. What is the point in coming out now, talking about "toxic masculinity" and the like, and encouraging Joan soap at home to be vocal about abuse, when they- some of the most powerful and prominent personalities in the world- couldn't even manage to do it in their own workplace? Emma Thompson came out last night and basically threw the problem into our back yard- sorry Emma but this one is on you, not us.

It sounds good but for collective action to happen some sort of critical mass must be reached. Before such turning point, every "collective" action from the point of view of the individual would be this individual's action first, with all the risks associated. And that individual would be against an entire culture. What would you expect Emma Thompson to do against Weinstein 20 years ago exactly? Perhaps she tried for all we know?
Magdalene laundries were not exactly secret but what could an individual do, up to a certain point? It was just how things were.

Actually I think we should credit social media here - for all their faults they help bring victims and supporters together to form such critical mass and topple the system when it can no longer absorb the accusations.

Skullface McGubbin

Given the nature of Hollywood, I can't help but believe that Weinstein is most likely only the tip of the Iceberg.

cnocbui

Skullface McGubbin wrote: »

Given the nature of Hollywood, I can't help but believe that Weinstein is most likely only the tip of the Iceberg.

Yes, but will the SS Hollywood sail on relatively unscathed, with all compartments remaining watertight or will it be mortally wounded, like the RMS Titanic, and sink with many drowned?

My guess is the former. In the US, the dollar bill is far mightier than the pen.

cnocbui

cnocbui wrote: »

Yes, but will the SS Hollywood sail on relatively unscathed, with all compartments remaining watertight or will it be mortally wounded, like the RMS Titanic, and sink with many drowned?

My guess is the former. In the US, the dollar bill is far mightier than the pen.

BBC survived all of the allegations, albeit a lot lighter, with the likes of Rolf Harris and numerous others sinking.

A lot more heads are going to roll, now with both men and women coming forward. Though, in truth, it'll only start getting serious once the pedo cases start getting the light they deserve as well.

I hope the likes of Corey Feldmen, David Icke, James Van Der Beek, and numerous others get the same spotlight as these others.

retro:electro

strandroad wrote: »

It sounds good but for collective action to happen some sort of critical mass must be reached. Before such turning point, every "collective" action from the point of view of the individual would be this individual's action first, with all the risks associated. And that individual would be against an entire culture. What would you expect Emma Thompson to do against Weinstein 20 years ago exactly? Perhaps she tried for all we know?
Magdalene laundries were not exactly secret but what could an individual do, up to a certain point? It was just how things were.

Actually I think we should credit social media here - for all their faults they help bring victims and supporters together to form such critical mass and topple the system when it can no longer absorb the accusations.

All it would have taken is someone with enough prominence and power to say something in an editorial or an interview, instead of talking about lipstick or some stupid sh!t that doesn't even matter, maybe make a comment about how the industry isn't all as it seems; lord knows they get enough opportunity to talk about themselves and their art.

Something like this coming from the right person could have gotten the ball rolling and would have got people talking. You wouldn't even have to name names, something like "I'm really grateful to be doing what I love but there are a lot of misconceptions about this industry and as wonderful as it is at times, there is also a lot of rot that needs to be exposed". But no. It's much easier to spew self indulgent nonsense and pat yourself on the back while painting a false picture of la la land.
I don't think I'm wrong in assuming a lot of them didn't actually care.

server down

anna080 wrote: »

Christoph Waltz was on tv there said the situation was blatantly obvious in the industry and that Harvey was "one of the biggest players". One of the biggest players- a lot of leakage in that sentence.
I got the impression he knew more than he wanted to say- but he said he didn't want to be "just another celeb to add his opinion to the mix".
It's also worth noting that Waltz is extremely good friends with Tarantino- maybe a reason behind wanting to keep his opinion restrained.

There has to be more than one player. You can only ruin someone’s career in a business if you can say at the golf club “don’t hire her. She’s not amenable. She’s a prude”.

Also a once off would be exposed long ago, only if the entire industry is compromised (including some actors who didn’t speak out) would secrecy last this long.

Outlaw Pete

I see that there is a #WomenBoycottTwitter today in solidarity of Rose McGowan (who is no longer banned off Twitter).

But if they're all boycotting Twitter today.......... then how come I'm seeing all their hashtags?

brooke 2

Neyite wrote: »

Yes I know that. But that kind of thing might hold up legally in Hollywood, but professionally your name would be mud if you reported that the A+ Lister who worked on the movie with you was snorting cocaine off a hookers arse. Reality is that the lawyers for the movie, the production company and that A-lister will come after you and make sure you are discredited whatever way they can.

What I meant was that there would be a clause along the lines of that the company cannot be held liable for the conduct of the employee in certain circumstances and that the employee must engage their own legal representation not use in-house counsel. Worded in a more lawyerly and legal way of course.

Heard this morning that Megan Fox once mentioned that when she went for her interview for Transformers, the producer?/director? asked her to go
out in her bikini and wash his car. Apparently, there was outrage from the Hollywood community when she said this and she had to subsequently apologise!

Shurimgreat

Deleted User wrote: »

BBC survived all of the allegations, albeit a lot lighter, with the likes of Rolf Harris and numerous others sinking.

A lot more heads are going to roll, now with both men and women coming forward. Though, in truth, it'll only start getting serious once the pedo cases start getting the light they deserve as well.

I hope the likes of Corey Feldmen, David Icke, James Van Der Beek, and numerous others get the same spotlight as these others.

Hard to take Icke seriously about anything. He's thrown dirt at more people than you can count, and often at completely innocent people with zero evidence.

strandroad

anna080 wrote: »

All it would have taken is someone with enough prominence and power to say something in an editorial or an interview, instead of talking about lipstick or some stupid sh!t that doesn't even matter, maybe make a comment about how the industry isn't all as it seems; lord knows they get enough opportunity to talk about themselves and their art.

Something like this coming from the right person could have gotten the ball rolling and would have got people talking. You wouldn't even have to name names, something like "I'm really grateful to be doing what I love but there are a lot of misconceptions about this industry and as wonderful as it is at times there is also a lot of rot that needs to be exposed". But no. It's much easier to spew self indulgent nonsense and pat yourself on the back while painting a false picture of la la land.

But they did. Seth McFarlane called him out, Gwyneth Paltrow had a coded-loaded chat about Weinstein coercing her to be there on Letterman many years ago. Nothing happened until this year.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't McGowan fairly banned from Twitter for violating their rules? Someone mentioned how she put a screenshot that contained someone's phone number in it, which was in breach of their Terms & Conditions. She deleted the offending image and had her account reinstated.

Venom

brooke 2 wrote: »

Heard this morning that Megan Fox once mentioned that when she went for her interview for Transformers, the producer?/director? asked her to go
out in her bikini and wash his car. Apparently, there was outrage from the Hollywood community when she said this and she had to subsequently apologise!

I recall around the time of the third Transformer's movie her making some comments in an interview comparing Bay to Hitler, Napoleon and being a real pain to work with was then sacked by Steven Spielberg. I thought that was why she had to apologize to come in from the cold so to speak.

B0jangles

Remember the amount of power and influence he had - say you do decide to come forward and accuse him - his P.R. machine immediately goes into overdrive and suddenly there are a thousand and one stories in all the papers about how you are a drug-addled, tantrum-throwing diva who's just spiteful because she's a has-been (or a starlet) who wasn't good enough to get a particular film role.

How many stories have you read read about how so-and-so is an unemployable mess, look at the state of them in these candid photos that 'someone' leaked?

selectamatic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Are people all that surprised about NBC? We're seeing the corruption that happened throughout the decades long abuse that Saville carried out, but on a larger scale.

This is it in a nutshell.

We've seen exactly how these things normally play out.

Zero media attention and then bam wall to wall coverage of one entity who is the sum of all evil.

no thought devoted to the system that enabled all this to happen and the darker murkier less well known accomplices and political connections.

If the BBC could escape relatively unscathed from a mainstream media sh1tstorm surrounding paedophilia then you can be sure Hollywood will be quite alright.

The only glimmer of hope is if one of the big news corps starts to link it all up.
From the sexual harassment of female and male actors to the drugging and abuse of kids but for that I'll not hold my breath.

As repeated throughout the entire thread money, power and the possibility of some extremely important people getting caught up in this will ensure the truth will most definitely; not out.

Shurimgreat

I think you can take it as a given that many of the very rich actors and actresses in Hollywood got there by working with a lot of unsavoury characters such as Weinstein.

And those who had principles and refused to play the same game ended up unemployed and impoverished.

Turning a blind eye or keeping quiet seems to have been the key to success in Hollywood.

Venom

anna080 wrote: »

All it would have taken is someone with enough prominence and power to say something in an editorial or an interview, instead of talking about lipstick or some stupid sh!t that doesn't even matter, maybe make a comment about how the industry isn't all as it seems; lord knows they get enough opportunity to talk about themselves and their art.

Something like this coming from the right person could have gotten the ball rolling and would have got people talking. You wouldn't even have to name names, something like "I'm really grateful to be doing what I love but there are a lot of misconceptions about this industry and as wonderful as it is at times there is also a lot of rot that needs to be exposed". But no. It's much easier to spew self indulgent nonsense and pat yourself on the back while painting a false picture of la la land.

This is what I just don't get. You have women like Jolie, Paltrow and now Jane Fonda who have more money and fame than god, have the attention of the worlds media at their feet yet never once choose to speak up until now?

Seriously, at what point when you become so insanely rich and so world famous, don't you feel like its pay back time on people like Weinstein who abused you and other actors you know and continues to abuse new actors entering the industry?

I know not every actor would be in a position to spill the beans so to speak on such horrid practices, but many, many were yet choose to do nothing and let the abuse continue.

_Dara_

kunst nugget wrote: »

Everyone is friends if you can benefit their career - association with Weinstein will be a hindrance from now on given the amount of stories spewing out now and nobody will want him anywhere near them. He'll be the sacrificial lamb, prosecuted to show the world how Hollywood is now changing its ways but the same old shít will still keep happening under the surface.

Gotta say, I’m okay with him being a sacrificial lamb.

Venom

_Dara_ wrote: »

Gotta say, I’m okay with him being a sacrificial lamb.

And once he's out of the picture it will be back to business as usual and nothing will have changed.

marienbad

Venom wrote: »

This is what I just don't get. You have women like Jolie, Paltrow and now Jane Fonda who have more money and fame than god, have the attention of the worlds media at their feet yet never once choose to speak up until now?

Seriously, at what point when you become so insanely rich and so world famous, don't you feel like its pain back time on people like Weinstein who abused you and other actors you know and continues to abuse new actors entering the industry?

I know not every actor would be in a position to spill the beans so to speak on such horrid practices, but many, many were yet choose to do nothing and let the abuse continue.

As regards the suppression and fear engendered by the establishment Hollywood we have been here before but in a different context .

All you need do is read the history of the HUAC blacklists in the 50's to see how the studio heads destroyed the lives of many and the bulk of stars were nowhere to be seen even as their friend and colleagues went down in flames .

Another thing to consider is that we as a nation are not much good at speaking out ourselves , we left undisturbed a swamp of offenders for well over half a century .

brooke 2

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you can take it as a given that many of the very rich actors and actresses in Hollywood got there by working with a lot of unsavoury characters such as Weinstein.

And those who had principles and refused to play the same game ended up unemployed and impoverished.

Turning a blind eye or keeping quiet seems to have been the key to success in Hollywood.

How many of those 'poor victims' have been pictured wrapped around Weinstein, gazing adoringly at him, especially after they had won their Oscar?! :rolleyes:
Gwyneth Paltrow, Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, among others, come to mind!

_Dara_

Venom wrote: »

And once he's out of the picture it will be back to business as usual and nothing will have changed.

We don’t know that. Things have changed for the better in the film industry before. For example, animal welfare standards are so much better than they used to be. I don’t get the defeatist attitudes here - how are they helping anything?

Ulysses Gaze

_Dara_ wrote: »

We don’t know that. Things have changed for the better in the film industry before. For example, animal welfare standards are so much better than they used to be. I don’t get the defeatist attitudes here - how are they helping anything?

I would love nothing more than every abuser of men, women and children, no matter how famous, was exposed in Hollywood.

There is just far too much money swimming around though so what may happen is this stuff is driven further underground and the hush money payments get much larger.

_Dara_

None of this is a reason for Weinstein not to be held responsible. Don’t want to be a “sacrificial lamb”? How about, you know, not being a fucking degenerate and stuff?

Ulysses Gaze

_Dara_ wrote: »

None of this is a reason for Weinstein not to be held responsible. Don’t want to be a “sacrificial lamb”? How about, you know, not being a fucking degenerate and stuff?

Personally, I find the phrase "sacrificial lamb" to be troubling.

It hints at one person being punished and the rest of the degenerates getting away with it.

I'd love to see the whole diseased, corrupt temple fall down on all their heads.

Venom

_Dara_ wrote: »

None of this is a reason for Weinstein not to be held responsible. Don’t want to be a “sacrificial lamb”? How about, you know, not being a fucking degenerate and stuff?

Not one person in this thread has said he shouldn't be held accountable. Some just believe it won't change anything in the industry when he's out of the picture and the media has moved onto the next big thing.

_Dara_

Venom wrote: »

Not one person in this thread has said he shouldn't be held accountable. Some just believe it won't change anything in the industry when he's out of the picture and the media has moved onto the next big thing.

Then that brings me back to “I’m very happy for him to be a sacrificial lamb”. Better one person than nobody at all.

_Dara_

Also note, I was not the person who brought up the phrase “sacrificial lamb”.

Outlaw Pete

Oliver Stone the latest to be accused.


https://twitter.com/HotpageNews/status/918847926734065666

Hande hoche!

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oliver Stone the latest to be accused.


https://twitter.com/HotpageNews/status/918847926734065666

He might have to flee to Russia.

backspin.

Shurimgreat wrote: »

I think you can take it as a given that many of the very rich actors and actresses in Hollywood got there by working with a lot of unsavoury characters such as Weinstein.

And those who had principles and refused to play the same game ended up unemployed and impoverished.

Turning a blind eye or keeping quiet seems to have been the key to success in Hollywood.

I can't help think of them all sitting in their finery at the Golden Globes or the Oscars talking down to the trump supporters and lambasting trump himself. How many of them have been abusers or have known about the abusers and said nothing. Sitting there as if they are the pillars of morality. Sickening really.

kunst nugget

_Dara_ wrote: »

Then that brings me back to “I’m very happy for him to be a sacrificial lamb”. Better one person than nobody at all.

Not if it means Hollywood can whitewash over everything else by saying 'Look how good we are! We brought down Weinstein! We're all okay now. Nothing more to see!' when at its core, nothing has changed and young people are still being exploited. Sadly, I think that's what's going to happen.

AllGunsBlazing

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Personally, I find the phrase "sacrificial lamb" to be troubling.

It hints at one person being punished and the rest of the degenerates getting away with it.

I'd love to see the whole diseased, corrupt temple fall down on all their heads.

There's a school of thought that all of Weinstein's past advances on women are only coming fully into the public domain as the result of a power play by his brother. No sympathy for the sleazey git either way - but if that is the case then this will likely begin and end with him.


It is odd that one of the most protected sexual predators in Hollywood all of a sudden finds himself under the bus.

_Dara_

kunst nugget wrote: »

Not if it means Hollywood can whitewash over everything else by saying 'Look how good we are! We brought down Weinstein! We're all okay now. Nothing more to see!' when at its core, nothing has changed and young people are still being exploited. Sadly, I think that's what's going to happen.

Who knows?

But for his victims, this could be a good thing. And we don't know if it will be business as usual.

Crea

kunst nugget wrote: »

Not if it means Hollywood can whitewash over everything else by saying 'Look how good we are! We brought down Weinstein! We're all okay now. Nothing more to see!' when at its core, nothing has changed and young people are still being exploited. Sadly, I think that's what's going to happen.

Sadly I think you're right. Once Weinstein has been dealt with they'll convince themselves that all is right in Hollywood again whereas it's common knowledge from the testimony of Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood that child abuse is systematic in the Hollywood system.