User Tag List

Page 16 of 43 FirstFirst ... 61011121314151617181920212226 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 842

Thread: Mr. Robot is Freddie Mercury: The BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY thread

  1. #301
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Artimus View Post
    I don't think Kidman is problematic but how is supporting a character created by a problematic individual better than celebrating a film created by a problematic individual? What if Practical Magic was directed by Singer?
    I don't know what you are referring to? Whoever created Gilliam Owens the character? Is that person getting money from me using that avatar?

  2. #302
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by harlequinade View Post
    I don't know what you are referring to? Whoever created Gilliam Owens the character? Is that person getting money from me using that avatar?
    He means that Kidman (who didn't google Harvey or asked Mira Sorvino before making movies with him) originated the character and you're supporting it. And yeah Kidman definitely benefits and gets money, not directly from the people who has her picture as an avatar, but people having her in avatars is what makes her a star who gets contracts that, yeah, make her rich.

    I'm of course with Artimus that Kidman isn't problematic, but if Malek was, Kidman would be too, and celebrating her or her characters would be as "bad" or worse as going to watch Bohemian Rhapsody. Of course I don't agree with that logic, I'm just pointing out your double standard. And not for the second of calling you out on double standards, but for the sake of promoting rationality and nuance: going to watch Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't mean endorsing Brian Singer's alleged rapes.

    Thank you for so much

  3. #303
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    He means that Kidman (who didn't google Harvey or asked Mira Sorvino before making movies with him) originated the character and you're supporting it. And yeah Kidman definitely benefits and gets money, not directly from the people who has her picture as an avatar, but people having her in avatars is what makes her a star who gets contracts that, yeah, make her rich.

    I'm of course with Artimus that Kidman isn't problematic, but if Malek was, Kidman would be too, and celebrating her or her characters would be as "bad" or worse as going to watch Bohemian Rhapsody. Of course I don't agree with that logic, I'm just pointing out your double standard. And not for the second of calling you out on double standards, but for the sake of promoting rationality and nuance: going to watch Bohemian Rhapsody doesn't mean endorsing Brian Singer's alleged rapes.
    Me having an avatar of a character portrayed by Kidman in a movie on message boards makes her a star and makes her rich and is somehow comparable to the studio paying Bryan Singer money to direct a movie and him still profiting from it as I assume he still gets a director credit? Me having an avatar of a character she plays is as 'bad' or worse as going to see the film directed by a guy who is an alleged rapist and who will profit one way or another from people seeing that film?

    Oh you don't agree with that logic you just have the audacity to actually use the phrase 'double standard'. And all I did was pointing out that it was saddening to me to see this title trending on twitter. Which equals a whole bunch of people not knowing or caring who directed it. You wanna watch it, watch but don't justify that by some twisted logic involving avatars.

  4. #304
    Mr. Basic
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Location: East Tennessee
    Posts: 41,008
    This is a day old response but w/e, the only reason I put a spoiler tag was because while we all know Mercury died and when/how, what the planned (or was planned at one point allegedly) way it was being done in context of a movie? I would consider that a spoiler.

    Its like we all know when Mozart croaked, we can look that shit up on Wikipedia. But how that plays into the context of AMADEUS, well....see my point?
    Recent films RRA survived:

    Hell Fest
    Peppermint (BIG Thumbs Down)
    The Meg (Thumbs Up)
    Christopher Robin
    The Equalizer 2 (Thumbs Up)

  5. #305
    Heartless Vulture Kostas's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Posts: 34,681
    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    Genuine question: is Parsi a biologically different race from whatever Middle Eastern ancestry Malek has (which I don't exactly know what is)?
    He's Coptic Egytian.

  6. #306
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by harlequinade View Post
    Me having an avatar of a character portrayed by Kidman in a movie on message boards makes her a star and makes her rich and is somehow comparable to the studio paying Bryan Singer money to direct a movie and him still profiting from it as I assume he still gets a director credit? Me having an avatar of a character she plays is as 'bad' or worse as going to see the film directed by a guy who is an alleged rapist and who will profit one way or another from people seeing that film?
    Yeah you're being part of the system that makes her rich, yeah. It's fine if you want to apease your conscience by saying you're not and that it's totally different, though, whatever rocks your boat! After all I'm not the one saying we should punish Malek, it's you.

    And all I did was pointing out that it was saddening to me to see this title trending on twitter. Which equals a whole bunch of people not knowing or caring who directed it.
    Yeah most people don't care about who directed what, with our without rape allegations. That's sad in any event, for this movie and for any other movie. The fact that the original director who was fired has rape allegations against him shouldn't really harm the movie, though. You're mixing up conversations: people should talk more about rape culture and how to change it, which includes talking more about Singer, and people should also be more aware of who makes the entertainment they like, if only to thank them. That still doesn't mean people should be punishing Bohemian Rhapsody because an alleged rapist happened to direct a fraction of it before such allegations bit him finally in the ass.

    You wanna watch it, watch but don't justify that by some twisted logic involving avatars.
    LOL, I really don't have any need to justify myself, and haven't done so, it's you inventing strange moral crusades and blaming twitter people for being excited about this film.

    Thank you for so much

  7. #307
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    Yeah you're being part of the system that makes her rich, yeah. It's fine if you want to apease your conscience by saying you're not and that it's totally different, though, whatever rocks your boat! After all I'm not the one saying we should punish Malek, it's you.



    Yeah most people don't care about who directed what, with our without rape allegations. That's sad in any event, for this movie and for any other movie. The fact that the original director who was fired has rape allegations against him shouldn't really harm the movie, though. You're mixing up conversations: people should talk more about rape culture and how to change it, which includes talking more about Singer, and people should also be more aware of who makes the entertainment they like, if only to thank them. That still doesn't mean people should be punishing Bohemian Rhapsody because an alleged rapist happened to direct a fraction of it before such allegations bit him finally in the ass.



    LOL, I really don't have any need to justify myself, and haven't done so, it's you inventing strange moral crusades and blaming twitter people for being excited about this film.
    If you are now, in addition to bringing avatars into conversation, saying I said something I didn't - that we should be punishing actors - and throwing 'lols' then I am done responding to you.

  8. #308
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Kostas View Post
    He's Coptic Egytian.
    Thanks, but my question is, are there such substantial differences in race between people of Malek's (Coptic Egyptian and Greek-Egyptian) ancestry and people of Mercury's (Iranian) ancestry? Are these condsidered different races?

    I mean, Wikipedia puts Greek Egyptians under the same ethnic group as Iranian Peoples: Indo-Europeans. Coptic Egyptians are under North-Africans. Both of them are considered sub-groups under the ethnicities of the MIddle East. So, I don't know, is really Malek that far from Mercury's ethnicity? Obviously I know tehy're not the exact same ethnic subgroup, and of course there are vast cultural differences between Zoroastrian people of Persian origins and Coptic Egyptians or Greek Egyptians. But are we now requesting EXACT cultural background for someone to portray someone else on film? Like, when do you stop? Does the actor have to been born in the same country? Share the same religion? Share the same language? What's the battle here? Extreme accuracy, or representation? If it's the later, as I hope, which representation are we talking about? Representation of Zanzibarians of Zoroastrian Parsi ancestry? Really? I'm just glad this hasn't gone to Eddie Redmayne in brown face, but to someone who shares with Mercury MIddle-eastern features. Middle Easterns have a hard time getting major roles in Hollywood. Malek is doing good, and it's cause for celebration that someone of his distinctly Middle-Eastern feautres gets such a plum leading role in a major film, and that it hasn't gone to someone more Arian. That doesn't mean for Hollywood all middle-Easterns are the same. They're not going to cast an unknown just because he happened to be born in Zanzibar to Zoroastrian Parsi parents, they're going to cast the most famous name that can "pass as". The "pass as" in the past would have mean "whatever famous white actor accepts doing brown face". With Malek it means they've finally haven't shied away from actually going with someone of Middle-Eastern aspect and actual ancestry. That's great. And if the fight is for representation, and not for absolute accuracy, this is really all you can ask for, because absolute accuracy is just unattainable unless, you know, you got the actual Freddie Mercury to play himself. And besides being unattainable, it's also rather pointless in art.

    Thank you for so much

  9. #309
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by harlequinade View Post
    If you are now, in addition to bringing avatars into conversation
    Girl. Everyone understood the comparison to your avatar. Don't #Try to pretend it's some far-fetched and completely unrelated thing. What you're doing is called running away, with shades of using a strawman argumnent and a scapegoat.

    saying I said something I didn't - that we should be punishing actors -
    No, I didn't say you said we should punish actors, I said that's the consequence of acting like you ask everyone to act.

    and throwing 'lols'
    Well, some people told me my tone came off as too serious and aggressive because I didn't use emoticons and lolz. I guess you can't make everyone happy!

    Thank you for so much

  10. #310
    Heartless Vulture Kostas's Avatar
    Join Date: Feb 2013
    Posts: 34,681
    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    Thanks, but my question is, are there such substantial differences in race between people of Malek's (Coptic Egyptian and Greek-Egyptian) ancestry and people of Mercury's (Iranian) ancestry? Are these condsidered different races?

    I mean, Wikipedia puts Greek Egyptians under the same ethnic group as Iranian Peoples: Indo-Europeans. Coptic Egyptians are under North-Africans. Both of them are considered sub-groups under the ethnicities of the MIddle East. So, I don't know, is really Malek that far from Mercury's ethnicity? Obviously I know tehy're not the exact same ethnic subgroup, and of course there are vast cultural differences between Zoroastrian people of Persian origins and Coptic Egyptians or Greek Egyptians. But are we now requesting EXACT cultural background for someone to portray someone else on film? Like, when do you stop? Does the actor have to been born in the same country? Share the same religion? Share the same language? What's the battle here? Extreme accuracy, or representation? If it's the later, as I hope, which representation are we talking about? Representation of Zanzibarians of Zoroastrian Parsi ancestry? Really? I'm just glad this hasn't gone to Eddie Redmayne in brown face, but to someone who shares with Mercury MIddle-eastern features. Middle Easterns have a hard time getting major roles in Hollywood. Malek is doing good, and it's cause for celebration that someone of his distinctly Middle-Eastern feautres gets such a plum leading role in a major film, and that it hasn't gone to someone more Arian. That doesn't mean for Hollywood all middle-Easterns are the same. They're not going to cast an unknown just because he happened to be born in Zanzibar to Zoroastrian Parsi parents, they're going to cast the most famous name that can "pass as". The "pass as" in the past would have mean "whatever famous white actor accepts doing brown face". With Malek it means they've finally haven't shied away from actually going with someone of Middle-Eastern aspect and actual ancestry. That's great. And if the fight is for representation, and not for absolute accuracy, this is really all you can ask for, because absolute accuracy is just unattainable unless, you know, you got the actual Freddie Mercury to play himself. And besides being unattainable, it's also rather pointless in art.
    No, actually you're right. Considering Malek's prime origin is actually Egyptian greek, he's closer to Farsi than people gave credit in a full anthropological way.

  11. #311
    Sorry to Bother you BillCipher's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2015
    Location: Gravity Falls , Oregon
    Posts: 2,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Cinesnatch View Post
    How many acts are there?
    every film typically has 3 acts...

  12. #312
    Moderator Aaron Leggo's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2009
    Location: Vancouver, BC
    Posts: 8,395
    I can't speak for harlequinade, but I think her point has become a bit misconstrued here. That happens occasionally on AW, of course, where someone makes a point, someone else disagrees, and then it turns into this downward spiral of back-and-forth bickering that goes nowhere and just widens the gap of confusion or misunderstanding. It's inevitable, perhaps, but I felt like, in this case, harlequinade's point was being lost.

    I don't think she was ever playing the moral police and suggesting that none of us should see this movie out of some ethical obligation and she's certainly not saying that we should "punish Malek" or anyone else that worked on the movie not named Bryan Singer.

    She was simply pointing out that, even in this current climate, Fox was able to sidestep a potential Singer controversy with ease and the general public isn't even aware of it. This saddened her. It's as simple as that. Not "we must punish Malek by not seeing this movie!" or anything like that. Singer managed to escape the #MeToo reckoning relatively unscathed as well, since even leaving this project was done under the guise of some personal issues with an ailing father or something. In the end, it sounds like Singer directed about two-thirds of the movie, which is a pretty considerable chunk, so it's not like he was replaced early on and his work has been largely scrapped. Quite the opposite, most likely.

    Obviously, when it comes to supporting or not supporting movies made by "problematic" people, there's a slippery slope involved because Hollywood is rife with sleazebags, but the main thing is that it's everyone's individual choice whether they spend money on the product or not. I think harlequinade was stating that she doesn't want to spend her money on this and that she imagined others (Twitter users, in this case) might feel the same if they knew more about Singer's alleged history. I don't see anything particularly controversial in those statements.

  13. #313
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Leggo View Post
    I can't speak for harlequinade, but I think her point has become a bit misconstrued here. That happens occasionally on AW, of course, where someone makes a point, someone else disagrees, and then it turns into this downward spiral of back-and-forth bickering that goes nowhere and just widens the gap of confusion or misunderstanding. It's inevitable, perhaps, but I felt like, in this case, harlequinade's point was being lost.

    I don't think she was ever playing the moral police and suggesting that none of us should see this movie out of some ethical obligation and she's certainly not saying that we should "punish Malek" or anyone else that worked on the movie not named Bryan Singer.

    She was simply pointing out that, even in this current climate, Fox was able to sidestep a potential Singer controversy with ease and the general public isn't even aware of it. This saddened her. It's as simple as that. Not "we must punish Malek by not seeing this movie!" or anything like that. Singer managed to escape the #MeToo reckoning relatively unscathed as well, since even leaving this project was done under the guise of some personal issues with an ailing father or something. In the end, it sounds like Singer directed about two-thirds of the movie, which is a pretty considerable chunk, so it's not like he was replaced early on and his work has been largely scrapped. Quite the opposite, most likely.

    Obviously, when it comes to supporting or not supporting movies made by "problematic" people, there's a slippery slope involved because Hollywood is rife with sleazebags, but the main thing is that it's everyone's individual choice whether they spend money on the product or not. I think harlequinade was stating that she doesn't want to spend her money on this and that she imagined others (Twitter users, in this case) might feel the same if they knew more about Singer's alleged history. I don't see anything particularly controversial in those statements.
    I know you're incredibly nice, but let's not saccharine and sugarcoat things. This was harlequinade's original post:

    Quote Originally Posted by harlequinade View Post
    It was saddening seeing this film trend on twitter yesterday. Fox successfully buried he who directed most of it and who was still paid money by the studio. And if some people knew they didn't seem to care.
    I mean, she's not sad Singer or Singer's allegations aren't trending, she's sad the film was trending. So, let's not sugarcoat it, she would like this film to fail and be ignored.

    And then she's adding that if people knew they didn't seem to care, because caring would mean not talking about this film, ignoring it and making it fail.

    And then she added the bit that "Can Mr. Robot not google?", of course implying he shouldn't have done the film if he had googled and he had found out about the allegations.

    This wasn't some indcredibly nuanced and moderate opinion expressed with utmost nicety. It's a strong opinion, voiced in strong terms. As respectable as it is, like every opinion, it's decidedly confrontantional, and as such it was debated.

    Thank you for so much

  14. #314
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Leggo View Post
    I can't speak for harlequinade, but I think her point has become a bit misconstrued here. That happens occasionally on AW, of course, where someone makes a point, someone else disagrees, and then it turns into this downward spiral of back-and-forth bickering that goes nowhere and just widens the gap of confusion or misunderstanding. It's inevitable, perhaps, but I felt like, in this case, harlequinade's point was being lost.

    I don't think she was ever playing the moral police and suggesting that none of us should see this movie out of some ethical obligation and she's certainly not saying that we should "punish Malek" or anyone else that worked on the movie not named Bryan Singer.

    She was simply pointing out that, even in this current climate, Fox was able to sidestep a potential Singer controversy with ease and the general public isn't even aware of it. This saddened her. It's as simple as that. Not "we must punish Malek by not seeing this movie!" or anything like that. Singer managed to escape the #MeToo reckoning relatively unscathed as well, since even leaving this project was done under the guise of some personal issues with an ailing father or something. In the end, it sounds like Singer directed about two-thirds of the movie, which is a pretty considerable chunk, so it's not like he was replaced early on and his work has been largely scrapped. Quite the opposite, most likely.

    Obviously, when it comes to supporting or not supporting movies made by "problematic" people, there's a slippery slope involved because Hollywood is rife with sleazebags, but the main thing is that it's everyone's individual choice whether they spend money on the product or not. I think harlequinade was stating that she doesn't want to spend her money on this and that she imagined others (Twitter users, in this case) might feel the same if they knew more about Singer's alleged history. I don't see anything particularly controversial in those statements.
    Thank you so much for writing this.
    If this trailer was released in September there would be a huge 'DIRECTED BY BRYAN SINGER' right there. They successfully buried that fact. I am not gonna spend my money on the film. And it was disappointing to me to see it trend yesterday. I certainly am not planning some boycott especially not about the actors but I will inform everyone who mentions that film to me who directed it because Fox buried it. They did manage to do that. And as far as I can tell Singer's credit stays. He sill got compensated. So this is still the world where Bryan Singer directs a movie and enough people disregard or are unaware of that fact or unaware of the allegations he is facing to get it to be one of the most anticipated movies of the year. I am not gonna think less of people who choose to see it, but a single fact that for months people tried to bring Singer's allegations to light and failed is reflected in that twitter trend. And it's very, very disappointing.

    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    I know you're incredibly nice, but let's not saccharine and sugarcoat things. This was harlequinade's original post:


    I mean, she's not sad Singer or Singer's allegations aren't trending, she's sad the film was trending. So, let's not sugarcoat it, she would like this film to fail and be ignored.

    And then she's adding that if people knew they didn't seem to care, because caring would mean not talking about this film, ignoring it and making it fail.

    And then she added the bit that "Can Mr. Robot not google?", of course implying he shouldn't have done the film if he had googled and he had found out about the allegations.

    This wasn't some indcredibly nuanced and moderate opinion expressed with utmost nicety. It's a strong opinion, voiced in strong terms. As respectable as it is, like every opinion, it's decidedly confrontantional, and as such it was debated.

    Don't explain my posts. And don't presume to know what I think. You are way off.

    I am very sad and angry and have been for a very long time that Singer's allegations AREN'T TRENDING. He has people threaten people on twitter who talk about it. There was this guy who shared the entire story and he was threatened to the point he removed his account. No one is talking about. Jessica Chastain raises a point 'how is no one talking about Sionger?' and no one is talking about it. He gets fired over unrelated reasons and still somehow not enough people are talking about it to get him to trend. Spacey's name did. Weinstein's did. And the guy who had as much if not more allegations over the years isn't. But the film he is profiting from IS TRENDING. I'd have literally no problem with Bohemian Rhapsody trending if Singer's name was trading alongside of it.

    I don't think Malek should have done this film given Singer directed it. But that is my personal opinion. I don't suggest people should punish him or anything like that. 'Respectable'? If your way of talking to me was respectable....I don't lol at people so I won't do that but I probably should.

  15. #315
    IM A RELIGION superb's Avatar
    Join Date: Mar 2017
    Posts: 5,639
    omg some of y'all..... I see Kidman, Harvey here? WTF?


  16. #316
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    Quote Originally Posted by superb View Post
    omg some of y'all..... I see Kidman, Harvey here? WTF?

    Well apparently Kidman is getting money from me using that avatar.

    You're welcome, Nicole! Looking forward to your work in Aquaman

  17. #317
    Moderator Aaron Leggo's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2009
    Location: Vancouver, BC
    Posts: 8,395
    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    I know you're incredibly nice...
    Thanks!

    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    I mean, she's not sad Singer or Singer's allegations aren't trending, she's sad the film was trending. So, let's not sugarcoat it, she would like this film to fail and be ignored.

    And then she's adding that if people knew they didn't seem to care, because caring would mean not talking about this film, ignoring it and making it fail.
    I think you and I might read things differently.

    I don't get from her original post what you get at all. I think she's saying exactly what I spelled out in my original post, that she's saddened by how the Singer story didn't take off and that his latest movie is now trending without any mention of the Singer allegations mixed in. I guess she could have worded it differently and specifically said "Why is the movie trending instead of Singer's allegations?," but that question answers itself, since the movie just released a trailer, so I get why she didn't ask that question. I don't see how what she actually said is so different than the alternative you've posed above. She's sad that the movie is trending, while understanding why the movie is trending, because she wishes the spotlight was shone on Singer's allegations instead. Simple as that, I think?

    If she really does wish that the movie would fail because of Singer's involvement, that's her opinion and she's welcome to it. I honestly don't really care if what will almost certainly be a paint-by-numbers biopic fails. Perhaps it's unfair to suggest that when many people worked on the movie other than Singer, but again, I don't think that's really what she's saying. She'd just rather that Singer's allegations be trending on Twitter instead.

    Her comment about people not caring if they knew also doesn't automatically add up to what you're suggesting here. She is, once again, saying that Singer's allegations are being ignored, so either (a) Fox succeeded in burying the story or (b) the people making the movie trend on Twitter know about it, but are talking about the movie instead of the allegations. Both options suck, but I just don't think she's saying "all the people that know and don't care are horrible people!" or anything along those lines. It's less about "caring = not talking about the movie" than it is "caring (should) = talking about the allegations instead now that a Bryan Singer movie is trending."

    I just think you're twisting her words enough to make this seem like a harsher response than it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    And then she added the bit that "Can Mr. Robot not google?", of course implying he shouldn't have done the film if he had googled and he had found out about the allegations.
    Well yeah, this is a slippery slope and lots of people have worked with Singer, of course, but I can understand her frustration.

    Quote Originally Posted by McTeague View Post
    This wasn't some indcredibly nuanced and moderate opinion expressed with utmost nicety. It's a strong opinion, voiced in strong terms. As respectable as it is, like every opinion, it's decidedly confrontantional, and as such it was debated.
    Fair enough. I didn't say it was "expressed with utmost nicety" or anything.

    But I don't see her original post as "decidedly confrontational," either. I think it was a fair and personal point to make and that she wasn't aiming to condemn anyone interested in discussing the movie. Seeing it trend on Twitter made her reflect on how the Singer allegations never took off in a big way and that bothered her, so she wrote about it. I think that's fine.

    ETA: harlequinade herself has further expressed her thoughts above. I just see nothing wrong with what she wrote and think it makes a lot of sense!

  18. #318
    Senior Member harlequinade's Avatar
    Join Date: Jul 2017
    Location: Poland
    Posts: 3,451
    I was trying to make a joke with Mr. Robot thing to lighten the conversation at least a little bit so it wouldn't escalate obviously I failed miserably there

    I came here to point out it was 1. trending 2. Fox buried who directed it. It bothered me so much too because this being popular doesn't even make people go 'hey I wonder why the director was fired' and dig into that. Reddit movies says nothing on it. A handful of tweets on twitter mention that. It is buried.

    If I thought people who wanted to see it sucked I would have been here earlier and said that but since I don't think that I wasn't here. And I absolutely resent calling my stance of refusing to see this film "strange moral crusade". I doubt me not contributing 6 bucks to this film's box office is gonna make any kind of dent but you know what I will still not contribute that 6 bucks.

  19. #319
    Senior Member
    Join Date: Dec 2007
    Pronoun(s): It
    Posts: 49,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Leggo View Post
    Thanks!



    I think you and I might read things differently.

    I don't get from her original post what you get at all. I think she's saying exactly what I spelled out in my original post, that she's saddened by how the Singer story didn't take off and that his latest movie is now trending without any mention of the Singer allegations mixed in. I guess she could have worded it differently and specifically said "Why is the movie trending instead of Singer's allegations?," but that question answers itself, since the movie just released a trailer, so I get why she didn't ask that question. I don't see how what she actually said is so different than the alternative you've posed above. She's sad that the movie is trending, while understanding why the movie is trending, because she wishes the spotlight was shone on Singer's allegations instead. Simple as that, I think?

    If she really does wish that the movie would fail because of Singer's involvement, that's her opinion and she's welcome to it. I honestly don't really care if what will almost certainly be a paint-by-numbers biopic fails. Perhaps it's unfair to suggest that when many people worked on the movie other than Singer, but again, I don't think that's really what she's saying. She'd just rather that Singer's allegations be trending on Twitter instead.

    Her comment about people not caring if they knew also doesn't automatically add up to what you're suggesting here. She is, once again, saying that Singer's allegations are being ignored, so either (a) Fox succeeded in burying the story or (b) the people making the movie trend on Twitter know about it, but are talking about the movie instead of the allegations. Both options suck, but I just don't think she's saying "all the people that know and don't care are horrible people!" or anything along those lines. It's less about "caring = not talking about the movie" than it is "caring (should) = talking about the allegations instead now that a Bryan Singer movie is trending."

    I just think you're twisting her words enough to make this seem like a harsher response than it is.



    Well yeah, this is a slippery slope and lots of people have worked with Singer, of course, but I can understand her frustration.



    Fair enough. I didn't say it was "expressed with utmost nicety" or anything.

    But I don't see her original post as "decidedly confrontational," either. I think it was a fair and personal point to make and that she wasn't aiming to condemn anyone interested in discussing the movie. Seeing it trend on Twitter made her reflect on how the Singer allegations never took off in a big way and that bothered her, so she wrote about it. I think that's fine.

    ETA: harlequinade herself has further expressed her thoughts above. I just see nothing wrong with what she wrote and think it makes a lot of sense!
    Twisting her words? Don't see how. She literally said it was saddening that this film trended, without adding anything like "with no stuff about the allegations". Her phrase was very simple and clear and I think it's you adding thoughts that weren't there originally, simply because you've read her ulterior explanations, which you wouldn't have read if I hadn't picked that post and debated it.

    And her all "you only talk about avatars!" was a rather disingenuous cop out.

    But anyways ultimately she's explained her position, I have disagreed, there's not much more to say.

    Thank you for so much

  20. #320
    Big Rotten Whore Sara Allorn's Avatar
    Join Date: Apr 2015
    Location: Only Dames Allowed
    Pronoun(s): She/Her
    Posts: 25,287
    I'm not sure what Fox is suppose to do in this situation. They can't not compensate him or take his credit back if he directed most of the final product. But they're not gonna highlight Singer's involvement when they fired him and he has all those allegations, so i don't really understand what they're doing wrong in this situation ?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •