Harvey Weinstein scandal (Mod warning in op.)

Laois_Man

When I heard on the news this morning that Harvey Weinstein got a slap in a restaurant last night, I expected it to be a newsworthy slap.

But it was this...

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_m7ghzfto/

I see the singer SEAL has called out Oprah winfrey something savage!!
ouch, especially from "a brotha"

take everything

Candie wrote: »

I suppose I don't get why it's important what various entities working in the most vacuous industry on earth have to say about anything.

The only important people to me are the victims, and if the abusers get some kind of justice handed to them that's the beginning and the end to me. I've zero interest in the opinions of various names or hangers on.

I just find it a bit odd how the conversation is about them and their thoughts. It's no wonder they're under the impression that they're actually important and that people care what they think.

I think it's because the likes of Meryl Streep have some power in Hollywood and the victims have no power in Hollywood. If a fledgling actress speaks out about scummy behaviour like Weinstein's her career is over. That's the cesspool that Hollywood is. So it's essentially a power thing. And Streep and the likes have power (at least more power than others). That's what this whole conversation is about. A culture that allows this. And Streep is smack bang in the middle of it doing her bull**** routine. And everyone laps it up.

Nothing will change in Hollywood (or more broadly) as long as people keep lapping up that bull****.

Dyr

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Natalie Portman's 'here are the all male nominees' for best director was also, I feel, another deferral. (She paid no attention to how they were all white etc). And most of the winners on the night were, you guessed it, white. (Oscars so white didn't get a tweet, eh?).

It's almost like these awards are based in a country with an overwhelmingly white population


Oh wait, they are.

The_Kew_Tour

rusty cole wrote: »

I see the singer SEAL has called out Oprah winfrey something savage!!
ouch, especially from "a brotha"

and everything he said was spot on

JP Liz V1

rusty cole wrote: »

I see the singer SEAL has called out Oprah winfrey something savage!!
ouch, especially from "a brotha"

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/01/11/seal-calls-out-oprah-winfrey-for-hypocrisy-calls-her-part-problem.html

Taking on Oprah wow but fair play and good on him

#SanctimoniousHollywood”

pilly

kunst nugget wrote:

Could people have been clueless about the Douglas allegations when giving him a standing ovation? - I'll admit to not knowing anything about it until I heard people giving out about it on Twitter. And, like I said already, all I've seen is an accusation by anonymous poster on a gossip website. Has there been anything concrete said about him or any actual accusations made against Douglas?

I'd never heard any of that either. But then I don't read gossip rags.

JP Liz V1

_Dara_ wrote: »

Urgh, saw a clip of Natalie Portman’s ‘male nominees’ comment. Very snide. And smug. Maybe there was female directors who could have been considered but that’s not the fault of the nominees. It was what it was at that point. The implication that they don’t deserve their nominations. Plus she would have known that the camera would be focussing on their faces. Talk about putting them in an awkward position. Just struck me as very opportunistic and bandwagony - “here’s my moment to make an important statement!”.

Crap like that undermines good stuff that is happening.

Greta Gerwig was only likely contender for LadyBird, Oscars will probably make it up to her now :P

Barbara Streisand also made a remark about female directors

FTA69

rusty cole wrote: »

I see the singer SEAL has called out Oprah winfrey something savage!!
ouch, especially from "a brotha"

Seal is a British Nigerian from West London known for being down to earth and generally sound; the whole American identity politics wankfest wouldn't be as big an attraction for him as it would over there I'd imagine.

4068ac1elhodqr

Laois_Man wrote: »

When I heard on the news this morning that Harvey Weinstein got a slap in a restaurant last night, I expected it to be a newsworthy slap.

But it was this...

http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_m7ghzfto/

It looks like the chap was brushing off a small fly.

Apparently the clip was being sold for 100k to news networks, hopefully it won't encourage others (100k!) to offer the 'sloth like creature' the occasional slap.

Synode

That link opens a clip of the Kardashians getting in a car. Riveting stuff

4068ac1elhodqr

Seen it in another location, apparently 100k spent on a 5sec video clip.
The sloth even has food all over his charming grey t-shirt.

The guy is painting himself as some hero but if you listen to the full audio of the tape he is chatting away happily to Weinsten in the minutes before hand. It only seems to be when Weinstein says not to a photo that he decides to slap him and make a buck.

RabbleRouser2k

http://people.com/movies/johnathon-schaech-molested-franco-zeffirelli/

Jonathan Schaech has accused director Franco Zefferelli of molesting him. Seems like he was into some sick stuff. Possibly molested his actresses too. Franco is known for films like The Champ and Hamlet with Mel Gibson.
I wonder if he curtailed Schaech's career? Seems like he was the next big thing, then opportunities dried off.

http://people.com/movies/james-franco-accused-sexual-misconduct-five-women-la-times/

So far five women have come forward to accuse James Franco. Wonder if the Oscars will act? Seems like he was a sure thing to win something.

Dyr

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So far five women have come forward to accuse James Franco. Wonder if the Oscars will act? Seems like he was a sure thing to win something.

What have they accused him of? I'd imagine it's more a question of whether the police will act yeah?

Outlaw Pete

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So far five women have come forward to accuse James Franco. Wonder if the Oscars will act?

Well, even if we set aside the fact that they are just allegations, *most* of what is alleged isn't even illegal.

Tither-Kaplan seems to mainly bothered because footage from one of the low budget productions she was in was taken from Vimeo and uploaded to PornHub (or wherever). It's a reality check she needs. I remember Katie Holmes nude scene was uploaded online long before the film was even released. So there was a big Hollywood studio unable to prevent such things, so what chance Franco's independent setup.

As for Violet Paley, her main complaint appears to be this encounter:

https://twitter.com/VioletPaley/status/950252181965410304


But this was when she was in a relationship with him and continued on to be. He nudged her head down, she didn't want him to hate her, so she went along with it for a time. Says that if it were today she'd say: "No, stop, get out of my car". Okay, and?? I mean, how is the fact that she agreed to go down on her boyfriend in a car but wouldn't today, anybody's bloody business? Because she was and up and coming young starlet and he a 40 year old director? Is that his crime?

Same with asking actresses who wants to go topless, that could easily be a question put to them with regards to which of them would not feel comfortable doing topless scenes. Here's a still from that film and a few of the girls are topless (nipples censored):



Aston Kutcher and Courtney Love star in it also and so be interested to hear if they have anything to say.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4585910/

The only accusation that I feel sounded sinister was the removing of plastic guards some actresses (and actors) wear as I can't see any reason to do that other than it being a nefarious one but to warrant him being left out of the Oscars I feel they would need to make absolute certain that was something he did.

RabbleRouser2k

_Dara_ wrote: »

Urgh, saw a clip of Natalie Portman’s ‘male nominees’ comment. Very snide. And smug. Maybe there was female directors who could have been considered but that’s not the fault of the nominees. It was what it was at that point. The implication that they don’t deserve their nominations. Plus she would have known that the camera would be focussing on their faces. Talk about putting them in an awkward position. Just struck me as very opportunistic and bandwagony - “here’s my moment to make an important statement!”.

Crap like that undermines good stuff that is happening.

The last molecule of respect I had for Portman disappeared with that one moment. At least Del Toro worked with Sorvino. And he never worked with Woody Allen, unlike Portman.

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/951555495768227840?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3

Ah the media, painted Wahlberg as a scummy person when really he was a better businessman than her. Might be time to sack her agent. Terry Crews did, and they were his agent too..

The timing of the accusations against Franco seem very.. interesting. Just as he wins Golden Globes and looks en route for Oscar nods.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

The timing of the accusations against Franco seem very.. interesting. Just as he wins Golden Globes and looks en route for Oscar nods.

He's always been more of an indie darling tbh, rather than a major star. The first taste of major stardom he got, the Sam Raimi Spider-man movies, resulted in him going on to study his craft more, as well as choosing an array of unusual projects, General Hospital for one, (It's a soap opera).
The few other times he's attempted blockbuster movies, such as Oz the great and powerful, he's had mixed results.

So you could argue him getting praise was uncommon, and bringing up his creepy behaviour would do nothing. Now hes doing a project where he's gotten some major attention, and talk of awards. That would leave him open to exploiting naive actresses. That may have triggered something in the women who came forward.

I'd be more concerned about the constant 'ignore the Woody Allen/ Roman Polanski/ Hoffman' victims. The people on their soapboxes don't want to even acknowledge those women.

ceadaoin.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The last molecule of respect I had for Portman disappeared with that one moment. At least Del Toro worked with Sorvino. And he never worked with Woody Allen, unlike Portman.

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/951555495768227840?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E3

Ah the media, painted Wahlberg as a scummy person when really he was a better businessman than her. Might be time to sack her agent. Terry Crews did, and they were his agent too..

Wahlberg and Williams are represented by the same agency, which makes it even worse

Oranage2

Actresses have a very short shelf life besides the odd few, and acting is so competitive that any new actress told if she sleeps with some producer and she'll get a big movie part would be too hard to turn down for most.

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/01/11/seal-calls-out-oprah-winfrey-for-hypocrisy-calls-her-part-problem.html

Taking on Oprah wow but fair play and good on him

#SanctimoniousHollywood”

I remember years ago she had he "experts" on the show Wowing the crowd as to how her fat body was down to "THE CARBBBS ladiieeeessssss"

the bread and cereal sales plummeted and thus in went the lobbyists!!
a while later, she has new "experts" on telling us how grains and bread and cereals "CARBS" are not the enemy laideeeessss!!! she's a shopping channel in a fat suit that wagon!!

One of her friends pointed out that seal would have been at the same parties and maybe even a Weinstein party at one stage in his marriage to Klum, as to discredit seal!! The difference is, seal is not accepting an award on the highest soapbox in the land, shouting TIMESUP LADIES!!!!!!

whilst I'm ranting, do you ever notice how those Ellen and oprah winfrey type shows are shot?? music comes on, everyone stands up and claps, the host comes on whilst clapping, shaking, high fiving hands etc, and eventually when the crowd has finished losing their ****!! they are told to sit down!!

What's the difference between this and a shoddy evangelist?? the crowd even buys into the whole agenda and narrative!! Fakery of the highest order. sure is that any different than how trump won his election??

Dyr

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I'd be more concerned about the constant 'ignore the Woody Allen/ Roman Polanski/ Hoffman' victims. The people on their soapboxes don't want to even acknowledge those women.

Acknowledge them as what?

Have any of them filed complaints with the police about Franco?

meeeeh

rusty cole wrote: »

I remember years ago she had he "experts" on the show Wowing the crowd as to how her fat body was down to "THE CARBBBS ladiieeeessssss"

the bread and cereal sales plummeted and thus in went the lobbyists!!
a while later, she has new "experts" on telling us how grains and bread and cereals "CARBS" are not the enemy laideeeessss!!! she's a shopping channel in a fat suit that wagon!!

One of her friends pointed out that seal would have been at the same parties and maybe even a Weinstein party at one stage in his marriage to Klum, as to discredit seal!! The difference is, seal is not accepting an award on the highest soapbox in the land, shouting TIMESUP LADIES!!!!!!

whilst I'm ranting, do you ever notice how those Ellen and oprah winfrey type shows are shot?? music comes on, everyone stands up and claps, the host comes on whilst clapping, shaking, high fiving hands etc, and eventually when the crowd has finished losing their ****!! they are told to sit down!!

What's the difference between this and a shoddy evangelist?? the crowd even buys into the whole agenda and narrative!! Fakery of the highest order. sure is that any different than how trump won his election??

I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

weldoninhio

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

Of course she'd be an authority on it, her nickname in certain circles is "Weinsteins Pimp"

meeeeh

weldoninhio wrote: »

Of course she'd be an authority on it, her nickname in certain circles is "Weinsteins Pimp"

What circles? Any source for that?

weldoninhio

meeeeh wrote: »

What circles? Any source for that?

Certain Hollywood circles. It’s been well known for years. A British actress Kadian Noble claims that Winfrey pimped her to Weinstein. I’m on my phone so can’t link

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

The scumbag men who perpetrated these crimes and those who were complicit in that have been roasted near page after page from the start. A few rightfully point out the bare faced hypocrisy of a Streep, or indeed a Winfrey and that's what you concentrate on? Guess what, women can be complicit muppets too.

I'm more old style Liberal than any other label and I have a real issue with lumping that collection of Hollywood hypocrites and fame whores in with that description. They're essentially full of merde and only prattle third hand opinions if it suits their bottom line and keeps them in the spotlight they're addicted to. DeCaprio is another example of this ballsology. Preaching to the rest of us on the environment while sitting in his private jet racking up the miles. He's either a grade A moron or a grade A hypocrite, or both. There's no other conclusion to be drawn. The face of Hollywood is a pox ridden one, a den of scoundrels at best, monster at worst and idiots in the middle.

Wibbs

Summed up by the Seal chap;

Oh he'll be told to pull his head in if he knows what's good for him, but he'd be close enough to the action to know the truth behind the scripted speeches and fake outrage. Winfrey has made her fortune through hard graft, talent and a real talent for pulling on the public's heartstrings and changing with the wind when it suited her.

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

The scumbag men who perpetrated these crimes and those who were complicit in that have been roasted near page after page from the start. A few rightfully point out the bare faced hypocrisy of a Streep, or indeed a Winfrey and that's what you concentrate on? Guess what, women can be complicit muppets too.

I'm more old style Liberal than any other label and I have a real issue with lumping that collection of Hollywood hypocrites and fame whores in with that description. They're essentially full of merde and only prattle third hand opinions if it suits their bottom line and keeps them in the spotlight they're addicted to. DeCaprio is another example of this ballsology. Preaching to the rest of us on the environment while sitting in his private jet racking up the miles. He's either a grade A moron or a grade A hypocrite, or both. There's no other conclusion to be drawn. The face of Hollywood is a pox ridden one, a den of scoundrels at best, monster at worst and idiots in the middle.

I have a policy of ignoring Hollywood's political opinions because it doesn't make them any more qualified than anyone else. In the same way as I ignore Milo Yiannopoulos or some white supremacist that is the current flavor of the month. People spout nonsense all the time and just because they have bigger platform it doesn't mean you have to pay any attention to them.

As for Oprah, she was a victim of sexual and other abuse, she knows poverty and inequality. She is not perfect (nobody is) and her shows were mostly ****e but to conclude that she is Weinstein's pimp because she sat besides him at a party is ridiculous. Until there is some more concrete evidence it's just a malicious slur to discredit a victim of abuse who dared to make a speech.

What we do have to pay attention to is that crimes were committed, women (and men) were abused and if people are making a stand against for whatever reason it should be a good thing.

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

As for Oprah, she was a victim of sexual and other abuse, she knows poverty and inequality. She is not perfect (nobody is) and her shows were mostly ****e but to conclude that she is Weinstein's pimp because she sat besides him at a party is ridiculous.

I never claimed she was his "pimp". I would suggest it unlikely she didn't know his reputation when it was an open secret within the business. Courtney Love dropped the hint publicly over a decade ago and she wasn't within an asses roar as close to Weinstein's circle as Winfrey. Ditto for Seth MacFarlane(who seems to represent the folks in that business who aren't utter ****, of which there are many). Never mind Winfrey is besties with Hilary and Bill, not exactly squeaky clean as far as this kinda thing goes. Bill has had a fair few accusations fired his direction. Never mind a denial and then admission of banging his intern. That power disparity hookup doesn't seem to have troubled Winfrey too much.

Until there is some more concrete evidence it's just a malicious slur to discredit a victim of abuse.

This is a major problem with the modern Church of Perpetual Victimhood. Once someone is labeled(or promotes themselves) a victim it means hands off, turn blind eyes. #alwaysthevictimwhenitsuits Victims can be utter scumbags too. Hell, a huge percentage of serial abusers and even serial killers were victims themselves. Actually I'm surprised oul Harvey hasn't pulled that "defence". Come out with the "I was abused as a kid, so it's not my fault" angle. Usually takes the edge off. Man am I a cynic...

What we do have to pay attention to is that crimes were committed, women (and men) were abused and if people are making a stand against for whatever reason it should be a good thing.

You had me up to the "for whatever reason" part. A bald faced hypocrite telling you the sky is blue doesn't negate the statement, but they're still a bald faced hypocrite.

drdeadlift

I watched this video the other night,at one point milo was one salty salty bastard.He makes sense of the reality of hollywood,with a bit of a calmer mood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2mxue-Pvxc

xtal191

https://twitter.com/appletjm/status/951106206055190528

HandsomeBob

xtal191 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/appletjm/status/951106206055190528

Wow. Half expected to see a date from a couple of years ago. This is the problem with trial by social media nicely summed up.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm no fan of Oprah's programs but if there is a person who can talk about abuse with authority it's her. That doesn't mean I want her to be American president but don't discredit her valid points with discussion about crabs just because you don't want to hear what she is saying or because you don't like where she is politically. This thread long ago became an opportunity to throw mud at mostly liberal women and nothing else.

really ? she opened a school in Africa and did a hames of a job vetting the faculty, it was investigated for child abuse but hey what matters is we read OPRAH, School, Africa right? don't go jumping on the #metoo bandwagon here too, liberal woman sniping my arse.

Wibbs

drdeadlift wrote: »

I watched this video the other night,at one point milo was one salty salty bastard.He makes sense of the reality of hollywood,with a bit of a calmer mood.

I have to say I agree with him regarding the whole Cory Feldman situation. He's on the button there. And this is obvious in how Feldman has been interviewed when compared to when women victims have been interviewed. The latter are in the majority of cases given the benefit of the doubt about their accusations and given a sympathetic ear. Feldman's interviewers in contrast are far more disbelieving and questioning about the accusations and his motives.

meeeeh

rusty cole wrote: »

really ? she opened a school in Africa and did a hames of a job vetting the faculty, it was investigated for child abuse but hey what matters is we read OPRAH, School, Africa right? don't go jumping on the #metoo bandwagon here too, liberal woman sniping my arse.

I'm sure she was personally wetting everyone and did terrible job. :rolleyes:

The only thing this thread proves is that we should be quiet, shouldn't voice an opinion, shouldn't attempt to do anything good because if you do someone will trawl around to find a compromising photo or a failed project connected to you. Be as mediocre and inoffensive as you possibly can be and you will be considered model person.

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

The only thing this thread proves is that we should be quiet, shouldn't voice an opinion, shouldn't attempt to do anything good because if you do someone will trawl around to find a compromising photo or a failed project connected to you. Be as mediocre and inoffensive as you possibly can be and you will be considered model person.

TBH I really have no clue where you're pulling that from. And again with the automatic run to victimhood in lieu of debate so common in the last few years. Never mind that damn near everybody is voicing an opinion on this subject. Or should we just automatically believe one set of opinions?

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

I never claimed she was his "pimp". I would suggest it unlikely she didn't know his reputation when it was an open secret within the business. Courtney Love dropped the hint publicly over a decade ago and she wasn't within an asses roar as close to Weinstein's circle as Winfrey. Ditto for Seth MacFarlane(who seems to represent the folks in that business who aren't utter ****, of which there are many). Never mind Winfrey is besties with Hilary and Bill, not exactly squeaky clean as far as this kinda thing goes. Bill has had a fair few accusations fired his direction. Never mind a denial and then admission of banging his intern. That power disparity hookup doesn't seem to have troubled Winfrey too much.

Someone above you did. I was speaking in general and it was not aimed at you but since you raised the point, you didn't exactly go out of the way to question their statement either.

Wibbs wrote: »

This is a major problem with the modern Church of Perpetual Victimhood. Once someone is labeled(or promotes themselves) a victim it means hands off, turn blind eyes. #alwaysthevictimwhenitsuits Victims can be utter scumbags too. Hell, a huge percentage of serial abusers and even serial killers were victims themselves. Actually I'm surprised oul Harvey hasn't pulled that "defence". Come out with the "I was abused as a kid, so it's not my fault" angle. Usually takes the edge off. Man am I a cynic...

Of course they can be utter scumbags but I think Oprah knows a bit more about the abuse than some keyboard warrior who dismisses her claims with but she was selling carbs... Being a victim doesn't make anyone a good person but until you can show me that she is some serial rapist or killer I'm pretty sure we can assume she knows a bit more about what she was talking about than those who are so eager to criticize her here.

Wibbs wrote: »

You had me up to the "for whatever reason" part. A bald faced hypocrite telling you the sky is blue doesn't negate the statement, but they're still a bald faced hypocrite.

They might be but if everyone joins the bandwagon things might change. You don't achieve change by only mobilizing those who are not objectionable in any way.

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I really have no clue where you're pulling that from. And again with the automatic run to victimhood in lieu of debate so common in the last few years. Never mind that damn near everybody is voicing an opinion on this subject. Or should we just automatically believe one set of opinions?

What victimhood. I'm just saying that the opinion is discredited with completely unconnected to the subject or unproven slur.

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?

um7y1h83ge06nx

I think people should be very concerned about this "trial by media". The accusations the like of Weinstein are facing are serious. The police should investigate and if the prosecutors believe it should be taken to court then he should be brought to trial.

If he is found guilty (my opinion - he probably is given the amount of accusations surrounding him for many years) then he should get jail. But right now he is an innocent person.

Give the seriousness of sexual crimes we need to consider the victims but also realise that the accused should be afforded due process. Would be a nightmare to be innocent and accused of such crimes.

Neyite

meeeeh wrote: »

Btw can I ask why was Oprah speech so objectionable? What did she say that was so wrong?

Because she's like America's answer to Bono?

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

Someone above you did. I was speaking in general and it was not aimed at you but since you raised the point, you didn't exactly go out of the way to question their statement either.

Eh I kinda did, right there in the bit you quoted.

Of course they can be utter scumbags but I think Oprah knows a bit more about the abuse than some keyboard warrior who dismisses her claims with but she was selling carbs... Being a victim doesn't make anyone a good person but until you can show me that she is some serial rapist or killer I'm pretty sure we can assume she knows a bit more about what she was talking about than those who are so eager to criticize her here.

Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. Being a victim of any crime doesn't make one an expert in it. It makes one a subjective voice on the crime. That's another problem of late; the assumption of expertise where it's often not warranted and personal experience trumps objective analysis of a subject.

They might be but if everyone joins the bandwagon things might change. You don't achieve change by only mobilizing those who are not objectionable in any way.

Well you hit the nail on the head with the bandwagon word. That's what it has become and the more heated, mob like and exclusionary it becomes and the more people get fed up with pampered preachers of Hollywood, the more likely that this bandwagon will face a backlash and it's beginning to start.

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

The people who will make a difference will be people like those women who are (often quietly)going to the authorities with their accusations and following up on it, rather than those tweeting so they get their you go girl retweets. And "awareness".

meeeeh

Sylas Purring Rigging wrote: »

I think people should be very concerned about this "trial by media". The accusations the like of Weinstein are facing are serious. The police should investigate and if the prosecutors believe it should be taken to court then he should be brought to trial.

If he is found guilty (my opinion - he probably is given the amount of accusations surrounding him for many years) then she should get jail. But right now he is an innocent person.

Give the seriousness of sexual crimes we need to consider the victims but also realise that the accused should be afforded due process. Would be a nightmare to be innocent and accused of such crimes.

I agree with that and that's why I don't overly like to comment on individual accusations. I think there are so many around Weinstein that it is unlikely he didn't commit at least some stuff he is accused of but in general any accusations should be treated with caution.

Wibbs

Neyite wrote: »

Because she's like America's answer to Bono?

+1 Without the "ah here" filter the Irish will generally apply to him. America as a culture has a fantastic degree of optimism within it, something the Irish could do with a dollop of, but they could equally do with a dollop of our cynicism. They are all too easily swayed by rehearsed emotionals and favoured demigods. Not surprising as they're exposed to it from the womb onwards. Even their news readers have increasingly gone the emote route, when they should be more dispassionate. Their public figures have had to become actors and "stars" so it's not too much of a stretch that their political figures would look to that too.

Wibbs

meeeeh wrote: »

I think there are so many around Weinstein that it is unlikely he didn't commit at least some stuff he is accused of but in general any accusations should be treated with caution.

+1. If he ever sees a courtroom the weight of numbers of women with the same story, never mind the actual taped encounter that corroborates his modus operandi will likely mean he'll see gaol time. Though it is America and wealth and prestige can be one helluva ally in court, but I reckon his goose is cooked there too.

meeeeh

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh I kinda did, right there in the bit you quoted.

Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't. Being a victim of any crime doesn't make one an expert in it. It makes one a subjective voice on the crime. That's another problem of late; the assumption of expertise where it's often not warranted and personal experience trumps objective analysis of a subject.


Well you hit the nail on the head with the bandwagon word. That's what it has become and the more heated, mob like and exclusionary it becomes and the more people get fed up with pampered preachers of Hollywood, the more likely that this bandwagon will face a backlash and it's beginning to start.

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

The people who will make a difference will be people like those women who are (often quietly)going to the authorities with their accusations and following up on it, rather than those tweeting so they get their you go girl retweets. And "awareness".

Me too did something good. It told people that is ok not to just a good sport when someone in position of power riches you inappropriately just for a bit of craic. And it's ok not to be embarrassed about being attacked in the dark alley like it's your fault. Very often victims are not heroes and going to authorities actually makes very little difference. Sexual assaults are very hard to prosecute so it's naive to expect miniscule amount if convictions will change things. It's a bit pointless to be a hero in private when cultural shift is needed.

Neyite

Wibbs wrote: »

Never mind what it's actually achieving. So far all we're hearing and seeing is noise. METOO!! Hashtags, catchphrases, trial by the mob on social media and millionaires in black dresses they didn't even have to pay for because all we need do is raise awareness. They love that word. Well it's pretty much all talk which is easy. Oh it sure plays to the stalls, but mark me will ultimately do feck all.

Exactly Wibbs. Well, awareness is raised now. They got their Globes platform and next month we'll hear more of the guff inspirational speeches at the Oscars.

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted? Is Oprah et all going to go to the cops and make a statement about the crimes they witnessed? Probably not.

Wibbs

Neyite wrote: »

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted?

Beyond the sacrificial lamb that is Harvey, I doubt it N. It would be my opinion they don't want it to go that far. Why? Because any true investigation not controlled by the Hollywood machine would expose more unpalatable truths within certain sections of that culture and it would hit the already shaky Hollywood bottom line.


Interior. Day. Laptop.

My very first post on this thread. wrote: »

They brought Woody Allen back into the fold too after his well dodgy seduction and marriage to his adopted daughter. So long as someone makes bank, they get left in the sin bin for a time, but after a while they come back in quietly.

They also tend to be attention junkies so I expect much outrage for a time, each fighting over twitter to be the most supportive/victimised.

When something like this happens in Hollywood, or music biz or the fashion biz and goes public I think: A) sounds like he pissed off enough of the top movers and shakers or this would have never come to light(often they wait until a greasy bastard is dead). After all he kept paying off his previous victims to keep quiet for twenty years. Something changed. It's a pressure release valve for the ongoing stuff we never hear about and C) it looks like the industry is "taking this very seriously" and need a sacrificial goat to pin out, but tomorrow another aspiring actress(or actor) willing to do almost anything to be a "star" will be looking down the barrel of another greasy bastard on another casting couch. Business as usual.

I have no reason to change that prediction even after all this time.

Me. About to feel my ball.

meeeeh

Neyite wrote: »

Exactly Wibbs. Well, awareness is raised now. They got their Globes platform and next month we'll hear more of the guff inspirational speeches at the Oscars.

Are there actual strategies that will be implemented to prevent sexual harassment or sexual abuse in the industry? Are we going to see Hollywood honchos put in place protections for minors who are at risk of exploitation by their employers, co-stars and often even their own parents. Are we going to see anyone actually tried and convicted? Is Oprah et all going to go to the cops and make a statement about the crimes they witnessed? Probably not.

Do you think that is what makes a change? The damageto the bottom line, when a movie has to be pulled because someone involved is target of negative publicity brings change. Do you really think nicely worded mission statement or safety statement or someone hired into hr department to deal with it will make any difference? Changes happen when it becomes more expensive not to pay attention than it is to keep victim quiet. As stated plenty of times it's not like people didn't know about Weinstein, it would be very easy to protect victims. And they didn't protect victim(s) even when they went to police, Weinstein was removed when he was damaging for the bottom line.