Quentin Tarantino's "Star Trek" - TBD
- Thread starter Captain Clown
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
Not just women. Warner Herzog abused males several times in his career. As did Jodorowski. And they took it. People are willing to go to extremes to impress people they respect and want to please, or for art.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
That's how most art is done tho, good or bad.
That's some times true. Surely, if you censor yourself so that no one gets upset or offended, then what is the real motivation? And how great can the end product be? But it is still unethical to harm someone else toward that end. This is why I'm torn on this. I guess the compromise is that everyone onboard has to be willing to suffer for the art. And frankly, Tarantino probably assumed that Uma was. She wasn't looking to work with some bland, middle of the road director who wasn't challenging anyone.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
No one's forcing anyone to be harmed tho. People wanna get paid and that's what they get.
Also, ethics doesn't really work in a gray world we live in. None of us here feel bad for hundreds of Chinese people who work, eat and sleep for weeks/months in unhealthy environment and get paid pennies.
Whenever people roll their eyes about the fact that there is, in fact a witch hunt going around right now, I always bring up Garrison Keillor, just like Liam Neeson did in that video. What happened to him was wrong, nothing else to be said. At the same time, I don't blame his employer for letting him go - the public relations backlash you get for just saying you're investigating, or that you want to make sure before you terminate someone - even if you DO end up firing them in the end - is enormous.
At the same time, some of the other thing's we've heard about - Weinstein, of course, and Matt Lauer come to mind, are disgusting.
About fifteen years ago, now, I was working as a high school student doing low-level tech support at a major private University in the DC Area. What I took away from my time there is that if you're a tenured professor, especially if you're well-known, you can get away with just about anything. One guy was known for masturbating regularly in his office, and his admin assistant caught him on numerous occasions. I was warned never to touch his keyboard. Another guy was due for a new PC and was out one day, so I grabbed it and took it down to our workshop to move his files. While doing it I found thousands of porn files. I immediately called my boss, who took one look and sent it up to the CIO. The CIO went to the dean. And....a few hours later, I was told to carefully move his porn to his new machine, and not to say anything about it. I like porn as much as the next guy, but jeez.
Those examples are absurd. This stuff shouldn't happen. But the media likes to hype EVERYTHING, and there's also always a few outspoken people, who are changing this from being pro-women (which I support) to being anti-men (which I don't).
Ok, should Tarentino, specifically, have done those things? Maybe not. But I don't see any evidence that he'd have done anything differently if his lead was a male. So making it a woman thing is a moot point, for me. Did she feel like she couldn't speak up because she's a woman? Perhaps. I've never worked in Hollywood. But I still think comparing Tarentino with Weinstein - even if he's nuts - is a bit of a stretch.
At the same time, some of the other thing's we've heard about - Weinstein, of course, and Matt Lauer come to mind, are disgusting.
About fifteen years ago, now, I was working as a high school student doing low-level tech support at a major private University in the DC Area. What I took away from my time there is that if you're a tenured professor, especially if you're well-known, you can get away with just about anything. One guy was known for masturbating regularly in his office, and his admin assistant caught him on numerous occasions. I was warned never to touch his keyboard. Another guy was due for a new PC and was out one day, so I grabbed it and took it down to our workshop to move his files. While doing it I found thousands of porn files. I immediately called my boss, who took one look and sent it up to the CIO. The CIO went to the dean. And....a few hours later, I was told to carefully move his porn to his new machine, and not to say anything about it. I like porn as much as the next guy, but jeez.
Those examples are absurd. This stuff shouldn't happen. But the media likes to hype EVERYTHING, and there's also always a few outspoken people, who are changing this from being pro-women (which I support) to being anti-men (which I don't).
Ok, should Tarentino, specifically, have done those things? Maybe not. But I don't see any evidence that he'd have done anything differently if his lead was a male. So making it a woman thing is a moot point, for me. Did she feel like she couldn't speak up because she's a woman? Perhaps. I've never worked in Hollywood. But I still think comparing Tarentino with Weinstein - even if he's nuts - is a bit of a stretch.
dan350zr
Super Freak
Just read Tarantino's response and It was rather interesting... He said he was suppose to do the article with Uma and that he had to go and find the film footage of the car crash himself and he freely gave it to her when she asked. Turns out Uma does the interview alone and then twists the facts around....
In regards to the choking scene where the chain goes around her neck, Tarantino was trying to figure a way of doing it so it wouldn't actually choke her but she suggest to actually wrap it around her neck and make it real, so it turns out it was actually her idea to do it.
As for the spitting scene, he explains he decided to do it himself to make sure it was done right and that they wouldn't have to do several takes, he explained the scene to her and she agreed to do it....
As for the crash, she was just suppose to drive in a straight line 35-40 mph just fast enough her hair would blow backwards. He drove the car down the road himself to make sure it was easy enough to do... well like any movie the lighting and camera guy suggested that she drive the car the opposite way due to the way the sun was, Tarantino figured it would be safe and told her so, she freely agreed to do it... well going the other way, it eventually goes into a little s curve and it was sandy so when she got to that point she panicked and lost control of the car and slid into a tree... that's a lot different explanation then the article where it make it sound like that Tarantino wanted her to drive straight into a tree. Seems it was nothing but a pure accident...
As for Harvey Weinstein, when Uma told Tarantino about Harvey coming on to her he confronted Harvey and told him that he wouldn't do the movie unless he apologized to her, which he eventually did and Uma even said that he did. So the movie was made...
That's why I'm over the #me2, it began as a way to give voice to actual victims but unfortunately it was taken over by Divas that want attention...
In regards to the choking scene where the chain goes around her neck, Tarantino was trying to figure a way of doing it so it wouldn't actually choke her but she suggest to actually wrap it around her neck and make it real, so it turns out it was actually her idea to do it.
As for the spitting scene, he explains he decided to do it himself to make sure it was done right and that they wouldn't have to do several takes, he explained the scene to her and she agreed to do it....
As for the crash, she was just suppose to drive in a straight line 35-40 mph just fast enough her hair would blow backwards. He drove the car down the road himself to make sure it was easy enough to do... well like any movie the lighting and camera guy suggested that she drive the car the opposite way due to the way the sun was, Tarantino figured it would be safe and told her so, she freely agreed to do it... well going the other way, it eventually goes into a little s curve and it was sandy so when she got to that point she panicked and lost control of the car and slid into a tree... that's a lot different explanation then the article where it make it sound like that Tarantino wanted her to drive straight into a tree. Seems it was nothing but a pure accident...
As for Harvey Weinstein, when Uma told Tarantino about Harvey coming on to her he confronted Harvey and told him that he wouldn't do the movie unless he apologized to her, which he eventually did and Uma even said that he did. So the movie was made...
That's why I'm over the #me2, it began as a way to give voice to actual victims but unfortunately it was taken over by Divas that want attention...
Last edited:
Great response. That said, just like with most "movements," I fear that the vast majority of #metoo supporters just want women to be able to feel free to speak up and be heard, while the media only focuses on the most rediculous opinionated men-haters (like Rose McGowan, for one, though based on her past I don't necessarily blame her - she's been through some messed up stuff). It's just like Black Lives Matter - Many peaceful protests, but the media just focuses on the much smaller number of violent ones and attacks on the police.
That's not to say I don't agree with you - I do. I'm sick of the witch hunting. Just that (call me an optimist), I prefer to think the majority of people aren't ridiculous. Though who knows anymore....
Caped Baldy
Super Freak
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 2,295
- Reaction score
- 16
The Garrison Keillor situation really was the worst of this, where motive and sensibility goes out the window. But we live in times where everyone is polarized. Everyone gets offended by every little thing. The President is a great example, as he is so thin skinned, but he's reflective of a larger cultural problem. We can't have reasoned discussions anymore in a lot of cases. I think the Asis Anzari case is another one. Guys can lose their careers because of bad decisions, even if it has nothing to do with an abuse of power. But. . .those are debates better addressed elsewhere by other people I reckon. A reckoning was certainly overdue in Hollywood, so I'm glad it has happened. Same with the academic world, though the business world hasn't had as many high profile cases come out yet.
Regarding Tarantino's rebuttal, who is to say what is true at this point (they probably both are close to being right in their own way)? Unfortunately, it's not a good time to be in conflict with a woman over any kind of real or perceived abuse, so my guess is that public opinion and fear by studios would take her side over his. His Polanski comments certainly don't help his case.
Regarding Tarantino's rebuttal, who is to say what is true at this point (they probably both are close to being right in their own way)? Unfortunately, it's not a good time to be in conflict with a woman over any kind of real or perceived abuse, so my guess is that public opinion and fear by studios would take her side over his. His Polanski comments certainly don't help his case.
I can't agree with you here, but that's your opinion.
dan350zr
Super Freak
Tarantino is 100% wrong in that stern interview IMO.... that said, how come the media is not also digging up interviews with female actresses that have also defended Polanski or have continued to work with Polanski over the years, for example you got Meryl Streep, Kim Cattrall, Debra Winger and Whoopi Goldberg to name a few... but right now it seems the media is only targeting men.
Last edited:
The pushback against Woody Allen is comparable to some of the perceptions toward Polanski now. I understand there may be new accusations, but he married his step daughter years before. If that's not an incredibly immoral misuse of power and influence, then what is? Of course, it is also unbelievably creepy. But plenty of actors were falling over themselves to work for him during that time. Now all of a sudden people are outraged and regretful about it.
Sad that Allen and Polanski are two of the most gifted filmmakers alive, but also scumbag human beings.
Sad that Allen and Polanski are two of the most gifted filmmakers alive, but also scumbag human beings.
I don't think anyone could have put it better than this. I've been told I'm wrong, but I find it strange that you either have to identify as a Right-Wing Nutjob or a Liberal Snowflake, and if you're anywhere in between, forming your own opinion on issues on a case-by-case basis, you're...well, you're like a crazy person.
I believe in many liberal causes - women's rights, civil rights, minority's rights, immigrant's rights. I believe that we should love who we want to. But outside of those personal protections, which I perceive as common sense human rights issues, I believe in the ability for states to govern themselves, and a less bloated federal government with lowered taxes. I'm not 100% liberal, I'm definitely not conservative. I'm me. And apparently, that's impossible for many to understand in today's society.
Exactly. It is a sad day when moderation and reasoned discussions can't happen. Everyone is supposed to put on their jerseys and step into line. And cynical opportunists in the media and politics exploit it at every turn, reinforcing bad behavior.
spindrift
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 13,328
- Reaction score
- 121
apparently you are on one side or the other these days- nothing exists in-betweenYou only lose your job if u are a gross white male.
Look at kevin spacey and george takei, they did similar things but only one lost their job. People didnt even attack george takei that badly and most people even defended him on twitter and facebook. He flew under the radar and is completely ok. Didnt lose anything.
Look at Jeffrey Tambor, had his show cancelled, for catcalling and unwanted hugging.... thats what he did
Aziz does what he does, has not lost anything. His shows are still fine. Nothing is lost. Hes still rich and powerful. Hes still worth 18 million.
Pick a side man, WE ARE AT WAR
If you dont stand with us, you stand AGAINST US
