Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Goat the dote

A Little Pony wrote: »

How do people think so many of the untalented people you see on TV nowadays get into that position in the first place.

Is that how you explain Fair City?

branie2

I've no sympathy for him

Shurimgreat

selectamatic wrote: »

Brunker should go to her nearest garda station and go on record like everyone else that witness' or is a victim of a crime and let due process take its course.

This name and shame social media witch hunt mentality can potentially go very wrong and innocent people can be accused of abhorrent things and as good as declared instantly guilty by the baying mob.

Name and shame or alternatively go to the nearest Garda station, either or.

I think one way or another she is not coming out well from her article. Either its a made up fiction which if so shows her in a poor light. Or else its a true story and she knows there's a guy out there using his power and influence to attack vulnerable women.

kunst nugget

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Name and shame or alternatively go to the nearest Garda station, either or.

No bloody way is it an either or situation. It's astonishing that you think that naming and shaming someone, without the need for any evidence, in the court of social media is as valid an option as reporting the crime to the Gardai for them to investigate.

Shurimgreat

kunst nugget wrote: »

No bloody way is it an either or situation. It's astonishing that you think that naming and shaming someone, without the need for any evidence, in the court of social media is as valid an option as reporting the crime to the Gardai for them to investigate.

Most of the women who came out against Weinstein had no evidence other than their own word. They named and shamed him. A brave but necessary move.

When some of the women went to the cops such as the model who wore a wire, the cops did nothing.

But as I said, she can do one or the other.

kunst nugget

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Most of the women who came out against Weinstein had no evidence other than their own word. They named and shamed him. A brave but necessary move.

When some of the women went to the cops such as the model who wore a wire, the cops did nothing.

But as I said, she can do one or the other.

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

Shurimgreat

kunst nugget wrote: »

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

It doesn't matter the forum where its called out to be honest. Its actually easier to sue someone writing in an established newspaper than someone casually saying something on twitter or social media.

Most historical sexual assault cases depend on the victims word against the perpetrators. DNA evidence etc would be long gone by that stage.

And as I repeated and which you continue to overlook, let her go to the Gardaí and make a statement.

But I would add, Weinstein was called out all over social media and most of the accusations were made on twitter by actresses and models, with little or no solid evidence to back it up. He's been tried (rightly) and found guilty by social media. My hunch is if it was left to the police to investigate Weinstein, he'd escape scot free. In fact shamefully, that's exactly what happened. Because a lot of the time prosecutors are reluctant to bring something to court where the evidence is flimsy.

markodaly

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Wasn't the reason for this population decline and a lack of workers in Germany? Is that left-wing? Also, can you remember who it was that helped wreck Iraq, Libya and Syria? Is western supplying of Islamist nut-jobs 'left-wing'?

Population decline and lack of workers in Germany, when the unemployment rate of both Spain and Greece hovers over 20%.

You prove the point also, if the reason was why you mentioned, then why did they lie about it? Were the German people asked about this?

The Rape of Lucretia

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

You missed the joke again-and since when is 'b***k' an expletive? It's not racist to say 'b***k' the same way it's not racist to say 'white'.

Oh, I see what the 'joke' was alright. But this is 2017, and while it may be an archaic 'joke', it certainly isnt funny. Rather it is grossly offensive, as is the idea one refers to a person as of any colour at all. Your attitude is proving my point, I believe indeed you do not find them offensive. But such an viewpoint is as outdated as the one where older powerful men exploit young women trying to work in an industry controlled by older powerful men, where their view of acceptable behaviour is lost in a time warp. Until now and again, as for HW, their cover is broken.

Wibbs

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Oh, I see what the 'joke' was alright. But this is 2017, and while it may be an archaic 'joke', it certainly isnt funny.

To you. I hate to break this news but you don't set the bar for what's funny and what isn't. Then again a sense of humour was hardly ever been an accusation levelled at intersectional social "studies" philosophies.

Rather it is grossly offensive, as is the idea one refers to a person as of any colour at all.

Grossly offensive eh? So one can't refer to a person's colour? That's verboten now too? You actually "censored" the word "Black". That's pretty much all we need to know TBH.

Your attitude is proving my point, I believe indeed you do not find them offensive. But such an viewpoint is as outdated as the one where older powerful men exploit young women trying to work in an industry controlled by older powerful men, where their view of acceptable behaviour is lost in a time warp. Until now and again, as for HW, their cover is broken.

It would be extremely naive to think that industries(any really) will not continue to be controlled by "older powerful men" and no amount of figurehead women in higher roles will likely change that. Why? Sexism is part of it, but a bigger part of it IMHO is that there are simply more men as percentage overall that will seek out and be willing to work their lives away to get to those levels. Pretty much every single person that got to the top from the bottom are near pathological workaholics and more men exhibit this trait. Most people, men or women don't.

Pero_Bueno

Hector Savage wrote: »

So apparently it's not unusual in the music industry either

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-41672902

I see what you did there :D:D

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Yep, she accused Dr Luke of giving her drugs and taking advantage of her over several years. She says she started to say no and he forced himself on her and blackmailed her by holding her career to ransom. He refused to release her from her contract so she was forced to work with him or no one. That's what the court case was about. I think she lost the case? But has since been released from the contract and has a new album out. Other artists who had worked with Dr Luke like Lady Gaga and Kelly Clarkson supported her so I think there was something in it.

I remember the thread on here at the time many had no sympathy for her. And those same people then wonder why more don't speak out.

What went against Kesha, or called her case into question, was that she testified, under oath and on camera, that Dr Luke had never touched her (This was a few years into her career) or abused her. Her mother testified the same. If she was lying under oath the first time, then her telling the truth now is called into question. Likewise, if she told the truth under oath the first time (as did her mom) then the second testimony is dubious. It's damned if she did, damned if she didn't.
Those who spoke of Dr Luke, including Kelly Clarkson, said he 'pushed her really hard'-which is possible. But then again, under Dr Luke, Clarkson had her biggest hits. She didn't speak of any abuse. He is no doubt a jerk, but a rapist? Seems questionable.

Kesha hasn't been released from her contract-but Dr Luke has. She's still with Sony.

Wibbs wrote: »

Naturally. Any industry that promises riches and fame will have gatekeepers to those riches and fame and a long queue of people trying to get though the gate. It's a perfect target rich environment for abusers.

I don't know if many people remember, but Lindsay Lohan, and Scarlett Johansson, were often pictured at parties holding alcoholic drinks whilst being underage (Lohan was 17, 18. Scarlett about 19. Keep in mind drinking age in US is 21). And these weren't the 'we snapped em doing something they shouldn't'-these were the 'awards photos where we look great'. Hollywood allows them do whatever it is they want.
Hell, Bruce Willis was 'involved' with Lohan at one point. She was barely legal, literally. And he was known for that sort of thing (the porn star Jenna Jameson had a story about him too-as in he was another forcable grabber.)

RabbleRouser2k

Wibbs wrote: »

To you. I hate to break this news but you don't set the bar for what's funny and what isn't. Then again a sense of humour was hardly ever been an accusation levelled at intersectional social "studies" philosophies.

Grossly offensive eh? So one can't refer to a person's colour? That's verboten now too? You actually "censored" the word "Black". That's pretty much all we need to know TBH.

It would be extremely naive to think that industries(any really) will not continue to be controlled by "older powerful men" and no amount of figurehead women in higher roles will likely change that. Why? Sexism is part of it, but a bigger part of it IMHO is that there are simply more men as percentage overall that will seek out and be willing to work their lives away to get to those levels. Pretty much every single person that got to the top from the bottom are near pathological workaholics and more men exhibit this trait. Most people, men or women don't.

Sadly this is true-there's a really great documentary on the Special effects industry-and it's pretty much a male dominated field-based on many factors. The working long hours is one. Another is, sadly, biological. Many women (not all) want to have a get married and have kids. Well, time is money, and so is pregnancy. Once a woman has a child, she's not going to be able to do overtime, at least, not as often. So mom's become lepers.
So that's money lost. (In the VFX industry-18 hour days are not uncommon-and no, they don't have a union). The closer to the top you get, the less women you will meet. (Substance abuse and divorce is also not uncommon-as is rehab).
Ditto the animation industry. Divorce-again, not uncommon. And again, there's a reason so many in the field are men. (The few who remain married have clever ways to do so-some have the 'when the work day is over, it's over-I don't take work home'. Still, you'll find a lot of divorce-some of the greats have been married four or five times).

ceadaoin.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sadly this is true-there's a really great documentary on the Special effects industry-and it's pretty much a male dominated field-based on many factors. The working long hours is one. Another is, sadly, biological. Many women (not all) want to have a get married and have kids. Well, time is money, and so is pregnancy. Once a woman has a child, she's not going to be able to do overtime, at least, not as often. So mom's become lepers.
So that's money lost. (In the VFX industry-18 hour days are not uncommon-and no, they don't have a union). The closer to the top you get, the less women you will meet. (Substance abuse and divorce is also not uncommon-as is rehab).
Ditto the animation industry. Divorce-again, not uncommon. And again, there's a reason so many in the field are men. (The few who remain married have clever ways to do so-some have the 'when the work day is over, it's over-I don't take work home'. Still, you'll find a lot of divorce-some of the greats have been married four or five times).

Surely what you're describing here is those men being unwilling to take time out of their career to help raise kids, rather than women actively choosing this role. There is absolutely no "biological" reason why a woman cant work overtime once she has a child as you suggest.

RabbleRouser2k

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Surely what you're describing here is those men being unwilling to take time out of their career to help raise kids, rather than women actively choosing this role. There is absolutely no "biological" reason why a woman cant work overtime once she has a child as you suggest.

Well, most of the men don't get married or have kids. So theirs no need to take time out. They're married to the job.
So there is a choice, for both, men choosing to be single, women choosing to marry and have kids. (Again, the 'moms as lepers' are coming from women. Not my words)
Women can do overtime, but if the kid gets sick, then that means the parents will have to alternate between minding them. If the mom is in VFX, the dad in...I dunno, construction, they'll have to take separate days off to look after the kid (Dad on Monday, mom Tuesday, Dad Wednesday etc). In VFX, it's not uncommon to get blacklisted-again, happens all too often. (And taking time out to look after your kids, cruelly, will get someone blacklisted. As I said, there are no unions).
Also, traditional overtime is a lot different to the VFX industry-18 hour days, 7 days a week-some artists don't even go home, just sleep in the office, well past the norm.

Shurimgreat

kunst nugget wrote: »

None of them came out and spoke against him until the New York Times had published their article on Weinstein - an article that would have had an enormous amount of research from numerous sources put into it and would have been thoroughly checked to make sure that what they were printing was legally sound and not libelous. What has come out since has helped corroborate the veracity of the story.

Completely different than the likes of Brunker casually calling someone out on social media with nary a bit of evidence to back it up.

She can name him to the gardai.
The point is not how or where she names him.
The point is she has knowledge of a "prominent businessman" who appears similar in character to Weinstein and is/was using his position and power to attack vulnerable young women.
Like I said, either way she is looking bad. Its either a made up story, or else she is refusing to report the businessman to the gardai.

Wibbs

Now it seems David Blaine the magician guy has been accused of drugging and raping a woman back in the noughties. The floodgates have been opened it seems(though from what I gather she brought this to police attention before the whole Weinstein thing came out).

Though as well as the trending #metoo hashtag, I'd be concerned of a #givemeattentiontoo angle. It's damned easy to make accusations, particularly when no names are mentioned and the interwebs mixed with human nature magnifies this when trends kick off. And of course we're unlikely to ever hear of those who did go along with the "casting couch" to get ahead in the business. The old leg over for a leg up.

Outlaw Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

And of course we're unlikely to ever hear of those who did go along with the "casting couch" to get ahead in the business. The old leg over for a leg up.

You had me at hello :P

tara73

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You had me at hello :P

this is disgusting and makes my blood boil. it shows everything about the whole subject in one picture. who's the poor woman?

Outlaw Pete

tara73 wrote: »

this is disgusting and makes my blood boil. it shows everything about the whole subject in one picture. who's the poor woman?

Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones, Jerry Maguire etc).

What makes you say "poor woman"? She seems happy enough to me.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What makes you say "poor woman"? She seems happy enough to me.

Exactly and this isn't a bad illustration of how people process things after a scandal like this comes out. Weinstein is and has been a scumbag, this much is abundantly clear. However the automatic response now is that any woman within his orbit was a rape/abuse victim*. No matter how they're acting or indeed what they say. That same picture three weeks ago would not illicit anything beyond "they seem relaxed/maybe they were together?". It it shows nothing whatsoever "about the whole subject in one picture". Human nature is a funny old thing, easily swayed and knee jerk in response. It's why the mob should never be relied upon where justice is concerned.




*he was a dick in other ways too. Who's to say he doesn't have Russel Crowe over a barrel on some deal in that same picture?

tara73

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones, Jerry Maguire etc).

What makes you say "poor woman"? She seems happy enough to me.

Because on the first picture you posted she doesn't look happy at all.

I think everything was discussed here to death about the subject. still people her are on and on about the women 'who took part in it' yes. there are women who took part in it but they are not the main problem here.

yaaaawn, done with it.

Wibbs

tara73 wrote: »

Because on the first picture you posted she doesn't look happy at all.

How so? She's leaning into him, with her arm draped over his leg and with a smile on her face. Like I said you're reading into a picture because of what you know now. I'd bet the farm your reaction if any if you saw that picture a year ago would be very different. And like I said, people are easily swayed by whatever view they currently hold.

Sexual predators like bullies are very good at identifying and seeking out people they can more easily victimise. It's a huge part of their character. As well as the internal Hollywood collusion because he was making them money hand over fist(and on "worthy" projects with it) you can almost guarantee that one reason it took so long to come out about him is because he was so good at picking his victims. It explains why a few women have said they didn't personally notice anything themselves in their interactions. Either they weren't his "type"(unlikely) or more likely he knew they'd fight back or scream it from the rooftops, or even that their partners would punch his lights out(particularly if they weren't in the business so would have little to lose by doing so). Ms Zellweger could well have been one of those women.

And I agree 100% that the main problem is Weinstein and the culture around him. Even those women who may have exchanged "favours" for roles only did so because of the culture. They sure as hell wouldn't have if it didn't exist as an option.

QueenRizla

His MO was really creepy, Lupita Nyong'o describes an encounter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4999264/Lupita-Nyong-o-accuses-Weinstein-sexual-harassment.html#comments

How did he keep all this from the wife? She is stunning and much younger, how did he manage to hid this from her for so long? His entourage seemed to be complicit in enabling him. He really is a disgusting piece of work.

Wibbs

QueenRizla wrote: »

How did he keep all this from the wife? She is stunning and much younger, how did he manage to hid this from her for so long?

It may well have been more of a business arrangement and for public optics than the average marriage. As you say she's younger and much better looking than him. She was hardly attracted to him physically and wouldn't have been if he was an average office worker. His power and wealth would be the attraction thing*. Maybe she knew or suspected but felt this was the cost of their arrangement? Or she simply decided to ignore it. There's many the man and woman who turn a blind eye to their partners indiscretions. So long as they stay private and out of sight.





*Which also begs the question; there are enough women he would have encountered who would have gone along with his sexual advances without duress, but yet this wasn't enough for him. Or he could have just hired expensive hookers. It was all about the power and control for him.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Renee Zellweger (Bridget Jones, Jerry Maguire etc).

What makes you say "poor woman"? She seems happy enough to me.

Oscar Winner Renee Zellweger. She starred in Chicago, and Cold Mountain-both of which he produced. And he got her an Oscar for Cold Mountain, despite it being an utterly awful film (Nobody could do a Southern accent for one thing)-oh, and she said she got the Oscar cos 'she deserved it' cos she won nothing for Chicago. Chicago was a movie that didn't deserve the awards it got-it was the year of Lord of the Rings, people forgot Chicago.
But that was Harvey-and the Oscars-reward campaigns, not talent.

No doubt he had stuff over Russell Crowe-Crowe had many a public meltdown (including the phone throwing incident). But there were more than likely many, many more-he even managed to cause an anti-semetic stir when he condemned circumcision.
Oh, and there are claims he helped kill a Weinstein story. So it's not as if he's some pious individual.

Penn

Wibbs wrote: »

*Which also begs the question; there are enough women he would have encountered who would have gone along with his sexual advances without duress, but yet this wasn't enough for him. Or he could have just hired expensive hookers. It was all about the power and control for him.

Absolutely. It's why him being in rehab for sex addiction is a joke. He wasn't addicted to sex. He didn't just attack or harass or rape these women as a spur of the moment thing because he couldn't control his impulses. He had a system. He planned these encounters. He had people helping him (whether unknowingly or, more likely, knowingly) to get actresses into his room and then leave them alone with him. That's not someone acting uncontrollably out of their addiction, that's someone planning these things and getting away with them because he knows he can.

Even the encounters like when he masturbated in front of the reporter in the hall of a restaurant, it was about the power he had in being able to do that.

There are, almost undoubtedly, actresses who have willingly slept with him for a role. Whether they became big name stars out of it or not. Especially seeing as how he'd brag about the actresses he slept with to other actresses as part of his process (likely in a "X has done it and look how famous she is now" way). But he crossed the line of consent and assaulted or raped these actresses out of his need for power and control, not sex.

QueenRizla

Wibbs wrote: »

It may well have been more of a business arrangement and for public optics than the average marriage. As you say she's younger and much better looking than him. She was hardly attracted to him physically and wouldn't have been if he was an average office worker. His power and wealth would be the attraction thing*. Maybe she knew or suspected but felt this was the cost of their arrangement? Or she simply decided to ignore it. There's many the man and woman who turn a blind eye to their partners indiscretions. So long as they stay private and out of sight.

*Which also begs the question; there are enough women he would have encountered who would have gone along with his sexual advances without duress, but yet this wasn't enough for him. Or he could have just hired expensive hookers. It was all about the power and control for him.

That's true. He seems generally obnoxious to people he deems beneath him. Comment to the waiter 'You'll get her what I tell you. I'm the one paying' as he is trying to ply her (Lupita) with drink she doesn't want.

Can't get my head around his beautiful and successful (dress designer) wife being attracted to him in any way. She is wealthy in her own right.
Power and wealth in a very unattractive obnoxious package, that's before you even factor in the sexual assaults!

Crea

QueenRizla wrote: »

That's true. He seems generally obnoxious to people he deems beneath him. Comment to the waiter 'You'll get her what I tell you. I'm the one paying' as he is trying to ply her (Lupita) with drink she doesn't want.

Can't get my head around his beautiful and successful (dress designer) wife being attracted to him in any way. She is wealthy in her own right.
Power and wealth in a very unattractive obnoxious package, that's before you even factor in the sexual assaults!

He and the wife married before her design business took off. Word is he used his influence to get actresses to wear his wife's designs on the red carpet. Apparently there was some bullying involved. I can't see many actresses supporting the brand in the next few years.

QueenRizla

Crea wrote: »

He and the wife married before her design business took off. Word is he used his influence to get actresses to wear his wife's designs on the red carpet. Apparently there was some bullying involved. I can't see many actresses supporting the brand in the next few years.

Didn't know that, just looked it up. Felicity Huffman said he threatened to pull funding for her movie Transamerica if she didn't wear his wife's dresses. :eek:

RabbleRouser2k

Crea wrote: »

He and the wife married before her design business took off. Word is he used his influence to get actresses to wear his wife's designs on the red carpet. Apparently there was some bullying involved. I can't see many actresses supporting the brand in the next few years.

Yeah-the 'Harvey Girls' as they were called-aka the lady's he was promoting/ having sex with. Hollywood knew who they were because they were wearing his wife's dresses.

Yeah, the brand will be seen as toxic. Based on his own branding.

tylercheribini

Speaking of Hollywood misogyny, The Quite Man finishing up on Film 4 + 1 now.

Shurimgreat

tylercheribini wrote: »

Speaking of Hollywood misogyny, The Quite Man finishing up on Film 4 + 1 now.

Ah here, the story was written in the 1930s and filmed in the 1950s. And it was more a p*sstake than anything else.

tylercheribini

Shurimgreat wrote: »

Ah here, the story was written in the 1930s and filmed in the 1950s. And it was more a p*sstake than anything else.

haha love that "pisstake" argument, my college lecturer made the same apologist shtick. The whole thing is one big ironic pisstake by 'Irish American' Ford eh? Funny yankee audiences didn't 'get it' then or now(look at the bus loads that still visit the filming sites, ironically of course):) Its the most stage "oirish", diddley di ****e you can get, makes Darby O Gill look like a documentary and ultimately spawned what we now know as bord failte and the 'Irish Cailin'/Rose of Tralee industry. Point I was making is how things that were wholely acceptable at one stage ( dragging slapping women etc) and hiding in plain sight, arent anymore. Was also referring to the making of stories more than anything else too.

branie2

tylercheribini wrote: »

Speaking of Hollywood misogyny, The Quite Man finishing up on Film 4 + 1 now.

It;s my favourite John Wayne film

tylercheribini

branie2 wrote: »

It;s my favourite John Wayne film

jaysus he is shocking, the arnie of his day.

Thecageyone

I despise the word/term "mogul" - why even use it? asshole is a much better term

Rubberchikken

I like to see a list of the women he didnt do anything to. The man appears to gave more energy thsn his girth would indicate.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Meanwhile, the focus is slowly starting to turn to the core problem in Hollywood- the long suspected child abuse that appears to be endemic in the industry.

Stranger Things star Finn Wolfhard fires agent amid sex abuse claims

Stranger Things star Finn Wolfhard, 14, has reportedly broken ties with his agent Tyler Grasham, after at least two accusations of sexual assault were leveled at the agent.

On Tuesday, former child star Blaise Godbe Lipman wrote a Facebook post alleging that Grasham had assaulted him.

"Tyler Grasham, under the pretense of a business meeting regarding potential agency representation at APA Agency, fed me alcohol while I was underage and sexually assaulted me," claimed Lipman, who has appeared in several US television shows including Weeds and The Office.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/2017/10/21/stranger-things-star-finn-wolfhard-fires-agent-amid-sex-abuse/


Actress Evan Rachel Wood has commented on Twitter that the paedophile scandal in Hollwood "will be the next dam to break."

https://twitter.com/evanrachelwood/status/920184070746681344

The sooner the better, IMO.

Riddle101

Not sure how the pedophile scandal was kept secret for so long. I remember Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood speaking out against it. Never seemed to get much attention though.

http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

Billy86

Riddle101 wrote: »

Not sure how the pedophile scandal was kept secret for so long. I remember Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood speaking out against it. Never seemed to get much attention though.

http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

It's because people like Corey Haim and Feldman are/were very messed up in the head and have had a history of drug problems so it was easy to fob off. The sad irony there is that children who suffer sexual abuse very often grow up to be messed up in the head and have drug dependency issues.

Doesn't explain Elijah Wood getting ignored though, he has always (as best I know) been a very stable, non-dramatic person. Though I believe he said he escaped without ever falling victim because his parents were very aware of the potential and went to lengths to keep him looked/supervised/etc after at all times.

This video I posted earlier in the thread is just depressing with how out of their way the hosts go to downplay it and essentially just tell him to shut his mouth in not so many words. If he were talking sh*** and looking for attention, Michael Jackson (dead at the time of this video) would have been the easiest 'big names' to jump on, yet he goes out of his way to say he did nothing and even acknowledge "of all people".

Also stumbled upon this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q70rA6dAJic - at 4mins in Haim is talking about being raped and Feldman about being molested during an argument between them which also backs up Feldman's comments that Haim 'got it' a good deal worse.

RabbleRouser2k

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Actress Evan Rachel Wood has commented on Twitter that the paedophile scandal in Hollwood "will be the next dam to break."


The sooner the better, IMO.

A number of the so-called 'anti-gamergators' have been revealed as sexual deviants-harassment, assault and rape. As well as one who was discovered with child pornography, Shane Vader (and not for the first time, either).

Billy86 wrote: »

It's because people like Corey Haim and Feldman are/were very messed up in the head and have had a history of drug problems so it was easy to fob off. The sad irony there is that children who suffer sexual abuse very often grow up to be messed up in the head and have drug dependency issues.

Also stumbled upon this - [at 4mins in Haim is talking about being raped and Feldman about being molested during an argument between them which also backs up Feldman's comments that Haim 'got it' a good deal worse.

Haim , today, is calling for people to come forward with things they witnessed to end paedophilia in Hollywood.

Yeah, Wood emerged unscathed because of the luck of having the parents he had. As, I believe, did Jonathan Brandis-Brandis wanted to go behind the camera, but couldn't get a break.

There have been allegations made about Joel Schumacher in regards to Haim, and I don't believe it. Someone close to Haim said that his abuser was 42 at the time-but Schumacher was older during the making of Lost Boys, the only time he worked with Schumacher. What also emerged was a story of how Schumacher was one of the few who tried to protect Brad Renfro-another troubled kid.
Renfro had a troubled childhood-his grandmother was his sole parent, because his parents were drug addicts. Schumacher tried to help him-even enrolled him in acting classes to give him stability.
But Susan Sarandon noted the poor guy had nobody there to support him when he fell hard into addiction-his father was making a good recovery, but that was too late for his son-he was doomed from the start. What I didn't know is that his grandmother passed away 17 days after him-natural causes.

http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/movies/hollywood_mine/2008/05/susan_sarandon_brad_renfro

There is a sad passage about Renfro in Onika Pointer's memoir (Humble B--tard: A memoir). She talks about her friends, actors, singers, etc. And one tale she tells of Renfro and an incident that occurred with someone called 'Ryan' during the making of Apt Pupil. She talks about how, as he told the story, she became sick to her stomach, crying. A few of those in her book didn't survive far into childhood-Renfro was one of em. In 1998, the year of Apt Pupil's release, was Renfro's first arrest-posession of marijuana and cocaine. (Also, according to imdb, Renfro was only 14 at the time of filming Apt Pupil).

Amanda Petersen probably suffered a similar fate. She fell into drug problems, eventually dying of the addiction. Months after her passing, her parents revealed she had been raped when she was 15, and never sought a prosecution. Keeping that bottled up must have been torture.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/amanda-petersons-family-reveal-horrific-rape-secret-after-tragic-deat-2015159/

JohnFalstaff

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There is a sad passage about Renfro in Onika Pointer's memoir (Humble B--tard: A memoir). She talks about her friends, actors, singers, etc. And one tale she tells of Renfro and an incident that occurred with someone called 'Ryan' during the making of Apt Pupil.

Ryan or Bryan?
http://ew.com/article/1997/05/02/indecent-proposal-set-apt-pupil/

RabbleRouser2k

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Ryan or Bryan?
http://ew.com/article/1997/05/02/indecent-proposal-set-apt-pupil/

She calls him 'Ryan' in the book-but we all know who she's talking about.

Coupla things.

We've all been conditioned to believe the narrative that successful people tend to burn out. At least celebrities. Why is that? Successful business people tend to keep going, sometimes fueled by drugs but celebrities burn out, especially when they make it big at a young age.

Also I was watching an episode of Family Guy from a few weeks ago (before the Weinsten stuff) and they make a joke about Kevin Spacey along the lines of "I was just walking my dog in the park". I'd be super disappointed if it was all true but there's stories about Spacey knocking about and it just got me wondering if it's another case of an open secret and "hiding in plain sight" considering his House of Cards character.

Billy86

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Haim , today, is calling for people to come forward with things they witnessed to end paedophilia in Hollywood.

I'm guessing you mean Feldman, Corey Haim sadly died in 2010. I'd imagine if the rumours are to be believed (and I'd very much lean toward that), he must have been passed around in the most horrific and frantic manner imaginable as well because while both had the whole teen heartthrob thing going on, Corey Haim really was an impossibly good looking young lad (this is when he was 14/15).



It's just so ****in upsetting looking at photos of either of them/both of them as kids now.

brooke 2

Riddle101 wrote: »

Not sure how the pedophile scandal was kept secret for so long. I remember Corey Feldman and Elijah Wood speaking out against it. Never seemed to get much attention though.

http://people.com/celebrity/corey-feldman-on-child-sexual-abuse-in-hollywood-and-corey-haim/

Didn't Barbara Walters ask Corey Feldman if he wanted to 'destroy the industry' when he tried to speak out about the sexual abuse of child stars? She was also
an apologist for Woody Allen. :mad:

Outlaw Pete

They had a reality TV show called The Two Coreys back in the mid to late noughties I used to watch. Worth watching if you can find it online. Runs about 10 hours in total if watch all the shows back to back.

Anyway, this scene is one of the most unforgettable scenes of it where the abuse is mentioned.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlZxPPzjIb0

B.A._Baracus

Accordingly inside rumors are that gwyneth paltrow was one of the women who slept with him for a part. Who knows if true but it's out there.

Also there are mumblings that other famous actresses slept with him but aren't so fourth-coming with that. I guess the idea being it is one thing to say he sexual assaulted them but then, in actual fact, revealing more took place.

RabbleRouser2k

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm guessing you mean Feldman, Corey Haim sadly died in 2010. I'd imagine if the rumours are to be believed (and I'd very much lean toward that), he must have been passed around in the most horrific and frantic manner imaginable as well because while both had the whole teen heartthrob thing going on, Corey Haim really was an impossibly good looking young lad (this is when he was 14/15).

It's just so ****in upsetting looking at photos of either of them/both of them as kids now.

Yeah, I meant Feldman. Haim and Feldman were supposedly just passed around, and unfortunately it was well known in Hollywood, about the abuse they received. I think one actress (she was young at the time)has said she'd heard about it. Haim more than likely got the worst of it-but he wasn't alone. Molly Ringwald has a few stories-hence why she quit the industry.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/20/is-hollywoods-next-scandal-the-pedophilia-ring-that-corey-feldman-has-long-talked-about/

Deleted User wrote: »

Coupla things.

We've all been conditioned to believe the narrative that successful people tend to burn out. At least celebrities. Why is that? Successful business people tend to keep going, sometimes fueled by drugs but celebrities burn out, especially when they make it big at a young age.

Also I was watching an episode of Family Guy from a few weeks ago (before the Weinsten stuff) and they make a joke about Kevin Spacey along the lines of "I was just walking my dog in the park". I'd be super disappointed if it was all true but there's stories about Spacey knocking about and it just got me wondering if it's another case of an open secret and "hiding in plain sight" considering his House of Cards character.

Yeah, I've seen similar. In certain industries like Visual and Make-Up Effects, and animation, burn out does happen, sadly. And that's an industry wide problem.
The 'childhood prodigy' thing has actually been studied. It's not uncommon for burn out to set in. Across the board, be it music, acting, art, medicine-burn out happens all too often with children. And it often leads to a deep depression.

I'm thinking Spacey will be found out sooner or later-nothing stays a secret for long. And he's at the stage where he's not a money maker for Hollywood anymore. He can be a supporting player-but he's not a lead.
Plus, more and more people are challenging him about his 'lifestyle'. His dad was a pervert too, so it runs in the family.
Twitter alone has tons of stories about him, which he doesn't address, and instead blocks.