|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 8, 2019 14:51:03 GMT
There´s a contract. It's actually public now (not morality clause anyway). Amazon is the one in the wrong here.
I have seen a few crazy takes on Twitter claiming Amazon is right because... well, they say so but that's not how things work. We probably would never know what really happened so the only fact is that there's not a case against him and never has been. Amazon knew who he was and his past and hired him then they doesn't have an excuse.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 8, 2019 15:47:17 GMT
I think they should have said the working relationship had not been productive. Banning his movies puts them on a very sticky wicket since he has been aquitted of all charges.
Personally I have zero idea if he is guilty or not. That family seems to have enough in fighting and bagage to keep teams of psychiatrists and lawyers in business for years. It’s frankly impossible for any outsider to know who is telling the truth.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 8, 2019 16:48:30 GMT
I think they should have said the working relationship had not been productive. Banning his movies puts them on a very sticky wicket since he has been aquitted of all charges. Personally I have zero idea if he is guilty or not. That family seems to have enough in fighting and bagage to keep teams of psychiatrists and lawyers in business for years. It’s frankly impossible for any outsider to know who is telling the truth. Agreed! It's just so difficult! I really would like to completely believe the Farrows but they lie a lot and they can also be very weird! Just after I posted that Allen have had just one accusation, Ronan tweeted about the brave women (in plural) who accused him of crimes against minors and names his sister and the model that recently said she has a romance with him. The problem is the model didn't actually acuse him of any crime and clarified to CNN that she was an adult and not a minor for a few weeks (as The Hollywood Reporter claimed) when they began their relationship! Also she said they used to have threesomes with Mia Farrow! That wasn't mentioned by Ronan! Last week, Mia's friend was discussing with Bob Weide and she said Mariel Hemingway accused Allen of inappropriate behavior but that's not true. There was a scandal because a paragraph on her biography years ago but she quickly said she was being misquoted by the press and that Allen was a dear friend. Weide is Allen's biographer so he actually knows her.
(see the thread) And of course, years ago one of the Allen's ex-girlfriends claimed Farrow's lawyers tried to convince her to lie and say she was a minor when they dated. It's like their are really trying to find another victim! This is just minor stuff! There's much more! Allen is a creep but that family is very weird, too!
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Feb 8, 2019 17:33:53 GMT
I'm not sure what Bob Weide's point is, since everyone (probably even HW) knows lots of colleagues who have no problem with them, or would not criticize them. Anyway as you said, nobody knows but WA and his daughter themselves, there is no way for all of his coworkers to know. Every horrible crime that happens, friends and family say "we had no idea!" In the past, Mariel Hemingway said he asked her to go to Paris as a teenager, then dropped the idea when she clarified that they should sleep separately. So nothing sexual actually happened (no thanks to WA) but it was still creepy and inappropriate.
That said, the investigations of his daughter found him innocent, so I wouldn't think they could be held against him, except...if public opinion turns against a celebrity and they are no longer bankable for whatever reason, is that grounds to end a contract in a business dependent on public popularity and interest? I don't know that much about it. For example if you are a music artist, and your albums stop selling, can't your record label drop you from a contract without needing further reason? Is film the same? If actors won't work with him and the public won't watch him, is Amazon required to keep paying for movies likely to flop.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Feb 8, 2019 17:43:44 GMT
I think they should have said the working relationship had not been productive. Yes, that's what I think. They have all the excuses with the crappy series and his last movie. Personally I have zero idea if he is guilty or not. That family seems to have enough in fighting and bagage to keep teams of psychiatrists and lawyers in business for years. It’s frankly impossible for any outsider to know who is telling the truth. I don't know if what Dylan says is true or not but he seduced his partners' step daugther who was a teenager while he was in his fifties.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Feb 8, 2019 18:09:24 GMT
I think they should have said the working relationship had not been productive. Yes, that's what I think. They have all the excuses with the crappy series and his last movie. Personally I have zero idea if he is guilty or not. That family seems to have enough in fighting and bagage to keep teams of psychiatrists and lawyers in business for years. It’s frankly impossible for any outsider to know who is telling the truth. I don't know if what Dylan says is true or not but he seduced his partners' step daugther who was a teenager while he was in his fifties. That, since she was not a minor, shows he’s a sleazebag but does not prove he’s a peadophile. Being a sleazebag is yuckky but not illegal. Unless or until proven otherwise WA has the law on his side so people need to be careful what they say.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Feb 8, 2019 18:26:34 GMT
I like WA's movies, and I watch them whatever his personal issues are. But all things considered, there are a lot of aspiring filmmakers out there longing for their big break, who haven't seduced their stepdaughters or attempted to molest their teen co-stars. So I won't shed tears for WA either way it's decided. If any of the rest of us, in our everyday jobs, had large numbers of coworkers refusing to work with us and customers refusing to patronize us, we'd probably lose our jobs too.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 8, 2019 19:00:21 GMT
It's in the details, tho.
It was extremely vile of him but she wasn't his step-daughter (there was not marriage) and Mariel Hemingway wasn't legally a minor and actually she is still talking highly of him. Nothing illegal!
I think Bob Weide is trying to convince the actors he said have told him in private that they believe in Allen that talk publicly about it because (according) to him there hasn't been any repercutions against those that refused to comply to Dylan and Ronan Farrow and plublicly condemn him.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 8, 2019 20:34:48 GMT
That said, the investigations of his daughter found him innocent, so I wouldn't think they could be held against him, except...if public opinion turns against a celebrity and they are no longer bankable for whatever reason, is that grounds to end a contract in a business dependent on public popularity and interest? I don't know that much about it. For example if you are a music artist, and your albums stop selling, can't your record label drop you from a contract without needing further reason? Is film the same? If actors won't work with him and the public won't watch him, is Amazon required to keep paying for movies likely to flop. Contract law is often complicated but from what understand if there is a breach of the contract that is consider a "material breach" then the other party can sue for damages. Not fulfilling the terms of the contract (such as not airing a production after you signed a contract saying you would) would be considered to be something that goes against the terms of the contract, so would be a "material breach". But contracts can be voided without there being a breach if certain circumstances arise. One of those could be an "impossibility of performance" which would render the contract void. But that would all hinge on whether Amazon could convince the courts that what they faced made it impossible to fulfill their end of the contract (and just losing money may not be enough - usually this is relevant for things like the death of one of the parties or complete bankruptcy, and I doubt that Amazon could claim that they were bankrupt making it so they couldn't show WA's work). Just look at it this way - if you hired a person to take pictures of your family for a special occasion, and after the photographer signed a contract saying he would, he didn't come through with his part and produce those pix, just because he suddenly realised that he would lose money on the deal, then you would have every legal right to sue him for breach of your contract. Even if that photog had heard some unsavory things about you and feared that his business would suffer later if he showed up and took your pictures. He still has to live up to the agreement he signed with you. The law frowns on people signing a legally binding agreement and then reneging because they just don't want to pay up after the other party has fulfilled their end. There are all sorts of legal ways to try and come to an alternate adjusted agreement (if the other party agrees to negotiate something different). It doesn't appear that Amazon tried any of those routes, although time will tell if Amazon decides to settle out of court on this matter. Without knowing the exact terms of the contract, it does look pretty good for WA legally - just based on basic info and seeing that WA has never been found legally guilty of crimes he has been rumoured to have committed. Interesting case, for sure.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 8, 2019 21:58:27 GMT
I agreed that it's an interesting case! Also if they go to trial it could be the last chance for discussing that old accusation in a court again even when it's not the central point, it's kind of relevant to the case.
|
|