|
Post by onebluestocking on Oct 14, 2017 19:20:12 GMT
I don't understand why anyone would stay in this job. Actors, actresses, directors, etc. pretty much had to get along with Harvey because he was The Movie Guy, but an executive assistant can go anywhere and work for anyone. There are plenty of business tycoons out there who wouldn't use them as a honey pot lure. Why keep enabling a sexual predator? Surely after the first time or two, they realized what was going on when they led young women to his office, pretended they were going to stay, then left them stranded there. One article I read said that calming the upset girls was part of the job. How is that any different from the Italian producer, who lied to Asia Argento about the party to trick her into Harvey's den?
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Oct 14, 2017 19:50:17 GMT
I was surprised to read that TCW was too long. I don't remember it that way. It started so late that I didn't notice the exact start and end times, but I was exhausted and I still didn't feel that it was dragging.
Now I'm wondering which 12 minutes they've cut from it! I really, really hope they haven't cut the scenes with his wife and children.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 20, 2017 22:33:40 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 22, 2017 21:04:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 26, 2017 10:36:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Oct 26, 2017 15:07:35 GMT
Oh, so it’s Ben’s fault the movie got pushed back? That makes me mad.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 26, 2017 15:56:00 GMT
Oh, so it’s Ben’s fault the movie got pushed back? That makes me mad. I didn’t get that vibe from that write-up at all. I saw no blatant blaming of BC. I thought they were just noting BC’s succinct statement along with acknowledging the fact that TCW (despite the pre-TIFF chatter about its Oscar chances) was no longer a front-runner for an award nor likely to be a big BO winner.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Oct 26, 2017 16:25:19 GMT
It’s just that statement hit me wrong. The reason the movie is having problems is because of Harvey, not because of anything Ben did or didn’t say. To me, they made it sound like the movie was shelved because Ben said something about HW, not that HW is a big, steaming pile of man crud. Or that there’s something wrong with the movie because of poor reviews or it wouldn’t make money, not the real issue, which is that HW is a big, steaming pile of man crud. Way to skirt the issue.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Oct 26, 2017 17:09:45 GMT
The whole article is about how the Harvey Weinstein scandal is affecting each one of the studio's new movies so I really doubt it's blaming BC of anything.
For me the observation that the star of the movie publicly (and deservedly) criticized the studio boss is just suggesting that he wouldn't had publicized the movie if they would had decided to continue with an Oscar campaign.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Oct 26, 2017 17:36:16 GMT
And I think when taken in its entire context the article actually quite nicely laid out the scope of TWC landscape in a realistic and rather factual way.
|
|