Posted by BigDaddyJohn
- Sep 19, 2018, 12:38:46 PMQuote from: Huggs on Sep 18, 2018, 08:29:53 PMQuote from: The Old One on Sep 18, 2018, 08:10:48 PM
The guy can still work, whether he should or not is another matter.
Oh he definitely should. He can clean the bathrooms at some arctic station that's staffed by 3 or 4 large men with IBS. His pay would simply be room and board. They could set him up in a nice little shed out near the perimeter.
Posted by Uncanny Antman
- Sep 19, 2018, 01:31:08 AMThe subject heading is "Scene cut from The Predator due to sex offender casting" D88M is talking about the missing scene.
Posted by Naginata
- Sep 18, 2018, 11:53:33 PM^ I don't see how that's relevant?
Posted by D88M
- Sep 18, 2018, 11:32:43 PMOn a side note of everything that has been said here, Munn introduction scene was awful and it really showed that footage was missing, could have not just reshoot that scene with another actor?
The first 40 minutes of the movie were not totally bad but it was already very noticeable the awful editing with lots of missing stuff.
The first 40 minutes of the movie were not totally bad but it was already very noticeable the awful editing with lots of missing stuff.
Posted by Original Predator
- Sep 18, 2018, 08:33:15 PMQuote from: BigDaddyJohn on Sep 18, 2018, 07:58:03 PM
Obviously the guy can still work, but most of us seem to agree that casting him in the role of an insistent hit on a chick guy is in poor taste, or at least very misinformed.
This is actually a good point. Put him in a scene with a Pred dog....Munn may not have an issue. I can see how she's not comfortable with the scene. Black was tone deaf on that, that's on him.
Munn tho better wake up and be consistent tho. Her employers are the same thing she's standing against, minus the legality trail to their names.
Posted by Huggs
- Sep 18, 2018, 08:29:53 PMQuote from: The Old One on Sep 18, 2018, 08:10:48 PM
The guy can still work, whether he should or not is another matter.
Oh he definitely should. He can clean the bathrooms at some arctic station that's staffed by 3 or 4 large men with IBS. His pay would simply be room and board. They could set him up in a nice little shed out near the perimeter.
Posted by The Old One
- Sep 18, 2018, 08:10:48 PMThe guy can still work, whether he should or not is another matter.
Posted by BigDaddyJohn
- Sep 18, 2018, 07:58:03 PMObviously the guy can still work, but most of us seem to agree that casting him in the role of an insistent hit on a chick guy is in poor taste, or at least very misinformed.
Posted by The Old One
- Sep 18, 2018, 06:45:08 PMAgreed.
Posted by Gazz
- Sep 18, 2018, 06:41:17 PMQuote from: Johnny Handsome on Sep 18, 2018, 03:11:01 PM
My opinion still stands though, the timing was shit. It's no help for the victim or any other campaign for this movie to bomb because of controversy, and threaten careers and employments from people who were out of control of this situation.
The timing was perfect for maximising publicity around the issue as evidenced by the continued press coverage. That certainly has helped the victim according to her own words. And if the movie bombs because a convicted sex offender was knowingly hired (which, let's face it, this was never going to make money), then good. Great in fact. What better way to send a message. As the old saying goes, money is the only language Hollywood understands and this will certainly make some studios think twice.
Posted by BigDaddyJohn
- Sep 18, 2018, 03:50:16 PMQuote from: Naginata on Sep 17, 2018, 09:14:17 PMQuote from: BigDaddyJohn on Sep 17, 2018, 01:34:56 PMQuote from: Naginata on Sep 16, 2018, 05:17:18 PMQuote from: BigDaddyJohn on Sep 16, 2018, 12:30:59 PM
No problem man ! Mac loves a little fun arguing sometimes !
Not a man, but thanks!
Oh ok !
By the way, did anyone saw anything about Munn speaking on Bryan Singer's bad deeds on the same subject ? I saw nothing, and have trouble imagining she doesn't know about it.
She may legitimately not have known about the Singer allegations; as far as I know, they were only allegations (ie: not full-on guilty verdict as in this case) and only came out after the movie had been released. In this case, the guy's guilt was a matter of public record AND mirrored the character he played in the movie exactly. It's a slightly different animal, though I can see where you're coming from.
Ok, i thought he was convicted one time, but he wasn't. Thanks for clarifying that.
Posted by Huggs
- Sep 18, 2018, 03:29:53 PMQuote from: Johnny Handsome on Sep 18, 2018, 03:11:01 PM
My opinion still stands though, the timing was shit. It's no help for the victim or any other campaign for this movie to bomb because of controversy, and threaten careers and employments from people who were out of control of this situation.
None of that would even be possible if the studio had done their due diligence. If safeguards were put in place to where offenders couldn't be involved, then there would be no financial risk to anyone right now. I think Shane knew everything. I don't see how he couldn't. But the studio should've planned for something like this. I'm not sure if any innocent person's career is in jeopardy though.
And frankly, if the movie bombs, I think it will be mostly because it sucks.
Posted by Johnny Handsome
- Sep 18, 2018, 03:11:01 PMQuote from: Gazz on Sep 18, 2018, 02:39:06 PMDid i ever say that the fact she spoke up was wrong? Did i ever say that Black hiring this guy was right? Did i ever say that people molesting others should be kept quiet? No, i didnt.
Amazingly on the issue of a director quietly hiring a convicted sex offender on their film, the person who spoke up about it is the one having their credibility and integrity questioned. Get the f**k out of here with that shit.
Sure the issue could have been dealt with quietly, but this way at least sends a message to the rest of Hollywood that there are people who won't stand for it anymore. To deal with the issue quietly changes little and to approach it with willful silence is to allow it to continue. Not to mention there's the victim's response, who has publicly thanked Olivia Munn for speaking up on the issue, her experience and validating her.
My opinion still stands though, the timing was shit. It's no help for the victim or any other campaign for this movie to bomb because of controversy, and threaten careers and employments from people who were out of control of this situation.
She can do this decision for herself, but she did it for the rest of the cast, no matter how good a service she did to the victim or the metoo or any other campaign, that is wrong, and that's the only thing i'm and others are criticising.
What she did was right, how she did it was plain revanchist, and i don't agree with that.
And i have the right to say that, it's my opinion.
Posted by Gazz
- Sep 18, 2018, 02:39:06 PMAmazingly on the issue of a director quietly hiring a convicted sex offender on their film, the person who spoke up about it is the one having their credibility and integrity questioned. Get the f**k out of here with that shit.
Sure the issue could have been dealt with quietly, but this way at least sends a message to the rest of Hollywood that there are people who won't stand for it anymore. To deal with the issue quietly changes little and to approach it with willful silence is to allow it to continue. Not to mention there's the victim's response, who has publicly thanked Olivia Munn for speaking up on the issue, her experience and validating her.
Sure the issue could have been dealt with quietly, but this way at least sends a message to the rest of Hollywood that there are people who won't stand for it anymore. To deal with the issue quietly changes little and to approach it with willful silence is to allow it to continue. Not to mention there's the victim's response, who has publicly thanked Olivia Munn for speaking up on the issue, her experience and validating her.
Posted by Johnny Handsome
- Sep 18, 2018, 01:49:48 PMQuote from: The Old One on Sep 18, 2018, 01:00:08 PMNot to me, not to the studio and countless people working their asses off for this, including all her co-stars.
Is ultimately more important than how financially successful The Predator, or the Predator franchise is.
She said she's angry for not having a choice... but she's got no problem trashing her entire cast with this too.
Nope, not working for me.
There are people out there that are heroes, going up and speaking up about abuse, even having experienced it by themselfes, getting attention on the back of a big studio movie for this is not brave, it's hypocritical. She would have been 100 times more a heroe if she would have come out with this in a month from now, she still would have done the right thing and letting people have their dime = Everyone is a winner.
There is nothing to protest against here, the scene got cut, the movie is not a problem anymore and she still felt the need to come out one day before the release, what did she think would happen? That people buy more tickets now?
Ask Boyd Holbrook what he feels like not getting a lead role in a major studio movie anymore because her co-star sank him and his movie over a long closed case that got solved internal long before the movie got released.
Nope, still not working.
