|
Post by darkpast on Jun 5, 2019 1:42:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Jun 7, 2019 12:48:24 GMT
Settling seldom looks good. Out of 11 accusers, one would think that at least one of them would have the integrity, guts, whatever, to have it out with Weinstein in open court to show what an SOB he is. Accepting money to keep your mouth shut tends to suggest painfully that the relationships were consensual, went south eventually, and someone (or a lot of someones) felt they were owed. Not a pretty picture, all the way around.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 8, 2019 1:25:54 GMT
I suspected this would happen since Weinstein's associates don't want Hollywood hypocrisy aired publicly. Even the National Inquirer was silent about it. This should have been the biggest news story out of Hollywood--a film executive who was exploiting famous women for decades--with everyone in Hollywood going along with it. The fact that all those women came forward shows how much of a two-faced pressure cooker Hollywood is. As soon as the sensed he was in trouble everyone came forward. Whether it was consensual is debatable. The settlements may have been designed to make his accusers look bad. Maybe they didn't want to accept it? What choice would they have? When Uma Thurman said she was going to talk about Weinstein it took two months-and when she did, she couched the topic with weird revelations "An A list actor raped me when I was 17" and "Quentin Tarantino tried to kill me." What she did say about Weinstein was dropped in the middle and glossed over quickly-but it was significant-she said Weinstein used women assistants to set his victims up for private confrontations. So, how many unknown actress go in there, assuming this fat obnoxious guy is only going to talk about a film project--only to get physically attacked? And if they do--then what? They cant go to the media because they are on Weinstein's side. The police appeared to be paid off too. If they cause trouble-career over like happened with Judd and Sorvino (I believe they were among the first to speak out). The Italian-Asian model who went to the police and wore a wire-tap--nothing happened with the case. It was only after the election that Weinstein lost his defense. We don't even know why. It's only the tip of the iceberg anyway. What about the child molestation in Hollywood? Not even talked about. Just more reason why there needs to be an entertainment media business separate from Hollywood. If such existed-then Weinstein types would not be able to blackmail people.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2019 12:45:14 GMT
This should have been the biggest news story out of Hollywood--a film executive who was exploiting famous women for decades--with everyone in Hollywood going along with it. Apparently you weren't paying attention, because it was the biggest news story out of Hollywood. I can't think of anything that got more press in the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 8, 2019 17:00:38 GMT
Apparently you weren't paying attention, because it was the biggest news story out of Hollywood. I can't think of anything that got more press in the last decade. Not compared to Swaggart or Jim Baker. They were covered daily in the tabloids. And that was pre-internet. I'd bet Bill Cosby got a lot more coverage than Weinstein despite having something like 40 cases compared to Weinstein's 1000.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 8, 2019 19:02:39 GMT
Apparently you weren't paying attention, because it was the biggest news story out of Hollywood. I can't think of anything that got more press in the last decade. Not compared to Swaggart or Jim Baker. They were covered daily in the tabloids. And that was pre-internet.
Irrelevant, since your point was "biggest news story out of Hollywood," not "biggest story out of televangelism". Lets compare apples to apples, here. Cosby went to trial with many women coming forward with very specific charges--dates, places, behavior, etc. Weinstein has far fewer who have done so against him, the 1,000 figure being basically a basket of mere rumor and guestimation. That there is even a trial at all in his case naturally generates more press.
That Cosby went as far as drugging victims creates an extra element of criminal gruesomeness that wasn't present in the case of Weinstein, which means even more press.
I'm sure, though, that we both agree the Weinstein case is more important--he was a person with a great deal of power and influence when women started coming forward, and while Cosby got away with being an abusive jerk for far longer, at the time his case exploded he was a dottering old man with no power or influence.
And I think the two stories were covered that way, too. Both cases were covered as powerful men abusing women, both cases were set as examples of an "institution" that has existed for a long time which needs to end, but Weinstein was rightly highlighted as being the most important since he was a king and queenmaker in the business, which Cosby never was. He's probably never going to jail (though I wish he would), but in perspective his fall was the greater one, and him being out of the picture is going to liberate more women in the business, not just because he's gone, but because he was used to set an example.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 8, 2019 19:16:14 GMT
Irrelevant, since your point was "biggest news story out of Hollywood," not "biggest story out of televangelism". Lets compare apples to apples, here.
There are many angles to the story--why does Hollywood claim to be feminist when the biggest independent producer in Hollywood treated some women like they were harem girls? In fact, at an awards show in 2015--a host said "5 women who no longer have to pretend Harvey Weinstein is attractive" which indicates everyone knew what he was doing. How does that adhere to feminism?
The reason the media doesn't is because Weinstein is one of them. What Swaggart did-paying a prostitute--is waaaaaaaaay lower in hypocrisy than what Weinstein was doing for 30 years.
The National Inquirer agreed not to cover the Weinstein story. Why?
The MeToo movement was about how many women in Hollywood were harassed by Weinstein--then it changed to all of America. That was a diversionary tactic. They should have been covering each individual case of Weinstein's abuse for months and months--asking who else in Hollywood knew and why didn't they care? Etc. Weinstein has privilege. But its unfair to call it male privilege since there are many businesses where the bosses do not treat women like they are harem girls.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jun 9, 2019 14:16:50 GMT
There are many angles to the story--why does Hollywood claim to be feminist when the biggest independent producer in Hollywood treated some women like they were harem girls? In fact, at an awards show in 2015--a host said "5 women who no longer have to pretend Harvey Weinstein is attractive" which indicates everyone knew what he was doing. How does that adhere to feminism? Because people are jerks and inconsistent in their application of their ideals when it suits them. It's human nature, not rocket science. Luckily, the culture is shifting so that this hypocrisy is more difficult to practice. But you aren't wrong for calling it what it is. I just doubt that you really, legitimately care.
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 9, 2019 16:00:49 GMT
Because people are jerks and inconsistent in their application of their ideals when it suits them. It's human nature, not rocket science. Luckily, the culture is shifting so that this hypocrisy is more difficult to practice. But you aren't wrong for calling it what it is. I just doubt that you really, legitimately care. Well I don't know the people involved so I can't care about the alleged abuse, but I certainly don't think its good. At the very least because it has a bad effect on film. First, this kind of nepotism limits competition. Weinstein wasn't concerned about making money--he had that covered. If he was running a normal business he couldn't fire people he spent money and time to boost like Mira Sorvino (and get her blacklisted--so all his associates wouldnt hire her either).
Second, because of this, those that are more likely to be promoted and hired may not even be talented, but merely agreeing to his sexual gratification.Those that are talented will shun the business if they don't agree to his demands. Bad all around.
|
|