Mel Gibson "article" in the indo

Prune Tracy

Jeez I'm not comfortable with this "His ex brought it on herself", "siding" with him stuff.

No problem with criticism of both in the relationship but nothing mitigates or justifies domestic abuse. I understand men feel under siege at the moment but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Mel Gibson clearly has emotional problems (it's documented that he has suffered depression) but it's up to him to get help if it's causing him to hurt others.

eviltwin

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Woah! She would have got $15 million if she simply did nothing. She must be ridiculously stupid.

Related to that, the Howard Stern Show pops up time and time again in controversies. Such as that, the George Takei grabbing dicks comment, plenty of Donald Trump clips talking about sex, and there must be other examples that I just can't remember off the top of my head right now. If you have anything to to hide, don't appear on that show lol.

Maybe she felt exposing him for his domestic violence was more important.

PeterParker957

eviltwin wrote: »

Maybe she felt exposing him for his domestic violence was more important.

I'd say she more likely thought 15 million would be chicken feed if she got a media career.

Prune Tracy

HandsomeBob wrote: »

The person who wrote the article doesn't do herself any favours by sneering at the calibre of actors such as Andrew Garfield.

It is what it is with Mel. He was/is an abusive alcoholic who crossed the line and paid for it for being blackballed and ostracized. That's why comparisons to the likes of Polanski, Allen and Weinstein do not work; they were indulged, while Mel was (rightfully) condemned.

He paid for his actions and now has the right to get his career back. You have the right to not partake in that, but I also have the right to do so without being labelled as an apologist or enabler or whatever other bollox that helps fill the page.

Yeah that Andrew Garfield comment was totally unnecessary.

Not sure Gibson has "the right" to get his career back though? But if he does get it back, he gets it back. Hopefully with a new leaf turned over. I've no issue with people enjoying his work. So much art is made by horrendous people, I'm just uncomfortable with the downplaying going on here though.

Prune Tracy

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I'd say she more likely thought 15 million would be chicken feed if she got a media career.

On what do you base this?

PeterParker957

Prune Tracy wrote: »

On what do you base this?

It's an opinion, why must it be "based" on anything ?

Why else would someone give up 15m ?

Insect Overlord

Prune Tracy wrote: »

Not sure Gibson has "the right" to get his career back though? But if he does get it back, he gets it back. Hopefully with a new leaf turned over. I've no issue with people enjoying his work. So much art is made by horrendous people, I'm just uncomfortable with the downplaying going on here though.

Are people supposed to go on paying for their sins until the day they die? I'm no Christian myself, but I like the idea that someone can eventually be forgiven when they've made appropriate penance. The trend of constant reference to people's mistakes/crimes is reminding me a bit of certain episodes of Black Mirror.

Prune Tracy

PeterParker957 wrote: »

It's an opinion, why must it be "based" on anything ?

Why else would someone give up 15m ?

It's not an opinion - it's speculation, which is usually based on some evidence.

As said, to expose his behaviour - why wouldn't it be that? It's less of a leap than your conclusion.

I understand your empathy for men in the face of crazy demonisation of men at the moment - I share your views there. But jeez, I'm not gonna be going down the road of then demonising women and downplaying domestic abuse against one - particularly when I'm a woman!

jonon9

Prune Tracy

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Are people supposed to go on paying for their sins until the day they die?

I'm not sure why you're asking me that when I didn't allude to any such thing in my post you quoted.

I just said I don't believe he has a "right" to get his career back. Unfortunately none of us has a right to any such thing.

But yes, I generally don't have a problem with it once a person is genuinely remorseful (sometimes remorse is more for themselves than for the person they wronged - e.g. Tom Humphries) and has paid their dues. It depends though - for really horrific crimes like war crimes and child murder... not sure there.

Back to this case though, no issue with his career resurging (as I said, lots of great art that I enjoy is made by terrible folk) but no need for downplaying what he did either, as some are doing here, with an unpleasant vibe of "Oh stop whining women".

PeterParker957

Prune Tracy wrote: »

It's not an opinion - it's speculation, which is usually based on some evidence.

As said, to expose his behaviour - why wouldn't it be that? It's less of a leap than your conclusion.

I understand your empathy for men in the face of crazy demonisation of men at the moment - I share your views there. But jeez, I'm not gonna be going down the road of then demonising women and downplaying domestic abuse against one - particularly when I'm a woman!

I take your point there, not my intention to demonise women per se but I may let my empathy take me too far.

You can understand reading something that "all men either have harassed women or will do" and i look at my friends, my dad and my brother and think "f**k you they will".

eviltwin

PeterParker957 wrote: »

I take your point there, not my intention to demonise women per se but I may let my empathy take me too far.

You can understand reading something that "all men either have harassed women or will do" and i look at my friends, my dad and my brother and think "f**k you they will".

Get off the internet. There is none of this kind of thing in the real world.

A Little Pony

He's a genius, a great director. Not arsed about the rest.

PeterParker957

eviltwin wrote: »

Get off the internet. There is none of this kind of thing in the real world.

You haven't met the bat crap crazy fruit loop I have to work with.

She believes that any woman making an accusation of harassment, abuse or rape should be automatically believed and "respected" for speaking up.

She's also used "patriarchy" and "phallic society" and wasn't taking the p**s!

Prune Tracy

A Little Pony wrote: »

He's a genius, a great director. Not arsed about the rest.

You're downplaying domestic violence by a non Muslim man? Such a shocker! :)

eviltwin

PeterParker957 wrote: »

You haven't met the bat crap crazy fruit loop I have to work with.

She believes that any woman making an accusation of harassment, abuse or rape should be automatically believed and "respected" for speaking up.

She's also used "patriarchy" and "phallic society" and wasn't taking the p**s!

So she's a nutter. She's not representative of feminism or women as a whole.

jonon9

I dont know what it is but people get upset when they receive a sarcastic answer or something that doesnt fit there views this is AFTER HOURS, your gonna get your mickey pulled.

A Little Pony

Prune Tracy wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

He's a genius, a great director. Not arsed about the rest.

You're downplaying domestic violence by a non Muslim man? Such a shocker! :)

George Best was the same, they shouldn't have done it but they did. It doesn't distract from his work which is great. Without these eccentrics and weirdos we wouldn't have many films on screen as the Weinstein fall out has shown us.

PeterParker957

eviltwin wrote: »

So she's a nutter. She's not representative of feminism or women as a whole.

Possibly not, you might be right.

She's certifiable though - and has daughters so it will live on!

Plague Maiden

brainfreeze wrote: »

I always wonder with these type of articles, how to the writers pick their targets? There is nothing wrong with a moral outrage hit piece every now again, however the article starts with:



Mark Wahlberg has done far worse things than Mel Gibson. What makes Mel Gibson special and Mark Wahlberg normal? Why did she choose one over the other?

Mel Gibson has said racist things, Mark Wahlberg has committed racial violence, even blinding a man for simply being Vietnamese.

Why is Mark, the far more violent man, more forgivable than Mel?

Answer: The Journalist doesn't know enough about either subject. Her gaps on Gibson are even acknowledged in the article - she probably has no idea about Wahlberg. This is not journalism, this is a badly researched rant created to capitalize on your emotions. This is the standard of a blog post.

Mark Whalberg was 16 years old when that happened. Gibson had been getting up to no good as a man approaching his 60s. Also, that Vietnamese man was not blinded in the attack. He's on record as having said that he lost his left eye long beforehand.

Otherwise I accept your point. These types of opinion pieces often go after the low hanging fruit.

But I must say I find your fascination with Whalberg's criminal past interesting. At what point can someone move on from their former self? Thirty years ago Whalberg carried out an aggressive assault and racially abused the victim. He served the sentence handed down by the Courts and has since, as far as we know, lived a successful and law abiding life.

What more do you expect of him? What should the media do? Highlight the type of person he was was in 1988, when he was little more than a child?

What's the point?

Jayop

A Little Pony wrote: »

He's a genius, a great director. Not arsed about the rest.

Beat the wife no problem, have an abortion you're a disgusting baby killer, right?

Parody.

Ann22

Pac1Man wrote:

I can't help but root for the guy!

I know what u mean. I really like watching him in films so we can say we don't really love him just the roles he plays!

AlanG

I agree with much of the article but I do believe there has to be room for redemption and reform in society. If he has learned from his past and they have gone through the courts then he should not be blacklisted.
This is not the case with Roman Polanski who is convicted and on the run for the rape of a child but seem seems to be considered a great guy in Hollywood. Harrison Ford should be blacklisted for how he supports Polanski.

Dubh Geannain

But Will Ferrell killed Blue

PeterParker957

AlanG wrote: »

I agree with much of the article but I do believe there has to be room for redemption and reform in society. If he has learned from his past and they have gone through the courts then he should not be blacklisted.
This is not the case with Roman Polanski who is convicted and on the run for the rape of a child but seem seems to be considered a great guy in Hollywood. Harrison Ford should be blacklisted for how he supports Polanski.

No he shouldn't.

Jayop

Dubh Geannain wrote: »

But Will Ferrell killed Blue

Blue died doing what he loved. You're my boy blue!

mad muffin

The greats are always the biggest bastards.

_Dara_

Very glad someone mentioned Marky Mark's disgusting crime.

I've heard people (elsewhere, not on boards) excuse him on the grounds that he was young. You know what? He wasn't that young. I think most 16, 17, 18 year olds know not to go around blinding innocent folk. I see above that he didn't blind that guy. Oh right, well then the racially-motivated assault is gggrrrraaand so.

Oh but he's so dreamy that his crime is no big deal. :rolleyes:

A Little Pony

Jayop wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

He's a genius, a great director. Not arsed about the rest.

Beat the wife no problem, have an abortion you're a disgusting baby killer, right?

Parody.

He has faced his demons and came out a better man, let's give him a chance.

PeterParker957

_Dara_ wrote: »

Very glad someone mentioned Marky Mark's disgusting crime.

I've heard people (elsewhere, not on boards) excuse him on the grounds that he was young. You know what? He wasn't that young. I think most 16, 17, 18 year olds know not to go around blinding innocent folk.

Oh but he's so dreamy that his crime is no big deal. :rolleyes:

He didn't blind anyone. The guy himself said he lost his sight in that eye years before.

It was a horrible crime but facts are facts.

_Dara_

PeterParker957 wrote: »

He didn't blind anyone. The guy himself said he lost his sight in that eye years before.

It was a horrible crime but facts are facts.

I had amended my post before your reply.

And, my point still stands. It was still a disgusting crime. He was responsible for a racially-motivate assault. Scumbag.

And again, he wasn't that young. Old enough to know right from wrong.

AlanG

AlanG wrote: »

This is not the case with Roman Polanski who is convicted and on the run for the rape of a child but seem seems to be considered a great guy in Hollywood. Harrison Ford should be blacklisted for how he supports Polanski.

PeterParker957 wrote: »

No he shouldn't.

Do you have a basis for why you think a person making millions for and collecting prizes for a fugitive paedo rapist should not be an outcast in a decent society. Polanski is living the high life thanks to the support and advocacy of the likes of Ford. I would live to hear why you think Harrison Ford's actions are ok.

razorblunt

Holy crap, did he beat his ex partner?
I totally missed that.

I was going to come in and say, he called a woman 'sugartits' and had a dig at the Jews, nothing compared to what's been uncovered recently, but the domestic violence threw me.

valoren

Barry Norman the critic used to tell the story about Gibson at some private dinner they were at. Gibson said he was as tall as him. Norman, all 6ft of him, told Gibson who was wearing boots and was clearly smaller than him that he wasn't. Gibson got incredibly angry until someone diffused the situation and suggest that they turn back to back and he would judge. So they did that and Norman could feel Gibson, in his boots, going up on his tip toes until the guy said you're both the same height. Gibson vindicated told him 'I told you so!', while Norman placated him with 'ok, once you're happy Mel' while internally wondering what a ****ing fruit cake he was.

Pelvis

Does he still have the beard? It makes him look like a raving lunatic tbh, he should get rid.

PeterParker957

AlanG wrote: »

Do you have a basis for why you think a person making millions for and collecting prizes for a fugitive paedo rapist should not be an outcast in a decent society. Polanski is living the high life thanks to the support and advocacy of the likes of Ford. I would live to hear why you think Harrison Ford's actions are ok.

I never said I thought they were "ok" but I'm saying that even if you disagree with this he has the freedom of speech to say what he likes.

You should not have your career derailed because someone disagrees with your viewpoint.

Polanski should be blacklisted.

Plague Maiden

_Dara_ wrote: »

Very glad someone mentioned Marky Mark's disgusting crime.

I've heard people (elsewhere, not on boards) excuse him on the grounds that he was young. You know what? He wasn't that young. I think most 16, 17, 18 year olds know not to go around blinding innocent folk. I see above that he didn't blind that guy. Oh right, well then the racially-motivated assault is gggrrrraaand so.

Oh but he's so dreamy that his crime is no big deal. :rolleyes:

The person that raised the issue was concerned with quality research and unearthing Wahlberg's hidden history, so I think it's only right that the facts be known. He didn't blind anyone. If we're going to hold people to task then let's at least limit it to acts that they've actually committed. People will have different views about when, if ever, a sentence is 'served' etc. and that's absolutely fine. But someone, anyone, should not be accused of something they didn't do, irrespective of any other circumstancs or crimes.

And no, nobody on here feels that racially motivated assault is grand. That's just you being facetious and petulant.

Hammer89

He has a wonderful beard. Being a man incapable of growing a decent beard, I've come to absolve bastards of their bastard ways if they can succeed where I've failed in that respect.

Plague Maiden

_Dara_ wrote: »

he wasn't that young. Old enough to know right from wrong.

Old enough to know right from wrong, but still young enough to have his crimes considered, by virtually every advanced democratic legal system in the world, to be qualitatively different from those of an adult.

_Dara_

Plague Maiden wrote: »

The person that raised the issue was concerned with quality research and unearthing Wahlberg's hidden history, so I think it's only right that the facts be known. He didn't blind anyone. If we're going to hold people to task then let's at least limit it to acts that they've actually committed.

Once again, I've amended the post, completely new member. And amended it long before you posted your reply.

I still consider him a scumbag. You're right, we can all form our own opinion on him.

Oh and Wahlberg was treated as an adult with regards to his crimes. Guess the US doesn't have an "advanced democratic legal system" then?

PeterParker957

_Dara_ wrote: »

Once again, I've amended the post, completely new member. And amended it long before you posted your reply.

I still consider him a scumbag. You're right, we can all form our own opinion on him.

Oh and Wahlberg was treated as an adult with regards to his crimes. Guess the US doesn't have an "advanced democratic legal system" then?

You're both right - the USA does treat under 17 as juveniles UNTIL the crime so bad they are treated as an adult.

Wahlberg's was and so he was tried as an adult AFAIK.

Plague Maiden

Yes, I am completely new. You busted me! I'm from the Marky Mark Defence League. I signed up to a random Irish discussion forum in anticipation of Marky's name being tarnished. And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what happened.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Jayop wrote: »

Blue died doing what he loved. You're my boy blue!

Little Boy Blue.

He needed the money

Awwoooo!!

_Dara_

Plague Maiden wrote: »

Yes, I am completely new. You busted me! I'm from the Marky Mark Defence League. I signed up to a random Irish discussion forum in anticipation of Marky's name being tarnished. And wouldn't you know it, that's exactly what happened.

:D:D

Neyite

If they had to permanently excommunicate everyone with a criminal conviction from the film industry, we would have fcuk all left.

She's a journalist. By her logic if she was to be convicted of say, dangerous driving and caused injuries to her passenger as a result, lost her job and served out a sentence, she should never be allowed write a single article again. Or a book or blog or anything that she can make money from.
People often lose their job or career as a by-product of their crime but it's up to the industry and/ or employers.

I'm not a defender of MG by any means. And I don't believe that he's reformed either. But expecting he'll not be allowed to work again because he committed an offence unrelated to his work is a bit daft.

Plague Maiden

_Dara_ wrote: »

Once again, I've amended the post, completely new member. And amended it long before you posted your reply.

I still consider him a scumbag. You're right, we can all form our own opinion on him.

Oh and Wahlberg was treated as an adult with regards to his crimes. Guess the US doesn't have an "advanced democratic legal system" then?

The US has over 2000 minors serving life without parole. It has executed over 20 prisoners in 2017 and over 1700 since 1976. I'll leave it up to you to decide how advanced certain state systems are in the United States.

As for a minor being tried as an adult, I'd personally consider that as an example of an advanced system because it's adjudged on an individual basis. Historic legal systems alternated between imposing no criminal liability on children and minors and treating them as adults outright, both of which, I believe, are inherently unjust.

ceegee

Plague Maiden wrote: »

Old enough to know right from wrong, but still young enough to have his crimes considered, by virtually every advanced democratic legal system in the world, to be qualitatively different from those of an adult.

He also broke someones jaw in an unprovoked attack when he was 21, but got off any criminal charges because he paid off the victim. He was already a successful musician at that time so can't really blame his surroundings

His being a scumbag wasn't an isolated incident or just down to him being a kid.

Fr_Dougal

That ain’t a knife, THIS is a knife!

Classic Mel.

Atoms for Peace

Mel Gibson could probably punch my mother in the face and id still thing he was a fairly cool guy. :pac:

Plague Maiden

ceegee wrote: »

He also broke someones jaw in an unprovoked attack when he was 21, but got off any criminal charges because he paid off the victim. He was already a successful musician at that time so can't really blame his surroundings

His being a scumbag wasn't an isolated incident or just down to him being a kid.

That's fair enough.

I don't know how I ended up in a position where I seem to be defending Marky Mark's track-record. I'm not. I couldn't care less about him as an individual. I may as well re-state my reasons for entering this discussion, even if only to clarify to myself why I'm still here, both chasing and throwing red herrings.

brainfreeze objected to the author of the article focusing on Gibson instead of Wahlberg, who he/she felt was guilty of even worse offences. However the 'theme' of the article, if that's not giving it too much credit, was that of the public too quickly forgetting about the immoral and/or criminal behaviour of stars, precisely because they're stars.

In that context focusing on Wahlberg struck me as odd because his offences were committed when he was a teenager, long before he became the person most people know him as today. He doesn't 'fit' into the general thrust of the article. If the article was saying 'look at these famous faces that think they're great, well they're not and here's why' well then fair enough. It would make for an ugly article but at least it would have some rationale or consistency. But brainfreeze wanted the article to be about Wahlberg because, well... just because. Just dig up some old news and absolutely excoriate someone with it for no reason other than 'just because'.

Other sub-issues tickled my nose such as the idea of someone being perpetually labelled a scum-bag because of a crime committed long ago, especially a crime committed at such a young age. I believe in the power of forgiveness and the possibility of redeeming yourself through good works and a better life. You have to allow people to move on with their lives and dig themselves out of a hole.

Anyway, that's how I ended up here in my first ever Boards.ie discussion. I hope they're not all this bizarre.