|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 5, 2019 2:49:57 GMT
I actually think Woody Allen could easily win a lot of money if Netflix will defend itself like that! It is still sad to see pseudo liberals on Twitter giving the reason to Netflix: c'mon, they are practically saying big companies could fire you if they don't agree with your opinions! And that's not even an extreme opinion!
I don't know if the musician that I mentioned above was really innocent or not. He claimed he was! But still he was harrassed online and he killed himself! I would think that's really tragic and wouldn't help any cause at all. He and his family were ruined by an anonymous tweet!
The problem with Biden is that he is a Democrat and a lot of the self-righteous characters are from his side. That's not the case with Trump who clearly was voted in big part for saying and behaving in an outrageous way. He is in some way the backlash to the political correct extremism. He is, of course, an extremist in himself.
Maybe I'm wrong but Al Franken hasn't have a comeback and what he did was very juvenile but hardly an actual assault. He was also a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 5, 2019 12:50:03 GMT
According to Variety this is the response of Amazon to Allen's lawsuit: variety.com/2019/biz/news/amazon-woody-allen-lawsuit-rebuttal-1203180327/amp/?__twitter_impression=trueThat's so weak! If I understand well, without an actual legal case against him nor the excuse of not knowing his past when they hired him the only reason to fire him was because he has the wrong opinion! And because he is a "pariah"! I know hating men like him is cool but the consequences of taking serious Netflix Amazon sayings could be abhorrent! You left this paragraph out, sgev1977 . I read that as there exist different claims by WA about the same thing (according to Amazon) and they're just asking to dismiss the duplicates. They're not fighting yet all the claims. I just found this nytimes article where it says just that.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 5, 2019 13:23:09 GMT
They were indeed dismissing just some of the accusations. I didn't noticed I left out that paragraph, sorry! Actually I don't remember having read it. If it's just because the repetition then just saying that would be logic but the rest of text is still sounding very wrong.
They are doing the same that click-baity tabloids do with that text. They took a few quotes out of context to present him like "bumbling in managing his public image". I remember that interview because it indeed was polemic not because what he said but because who he is, he was asked what he thought of Me too and he actually said it was great but people should be careful to not to take it to the extremes (not with these exact words but my point is that it was clear this was the message). Ironically it quickly became prophetic but because who he is it didn't matter what he would said it would always being polemic. Still he later kind of retracted in the sense that admitted that the central point should had been that Weinstein was bad. End Point.
Still, even if he is "bumbling" when he answer those (charged) questions that's a terrible excuse for Amazon to justify themselves.
I was very busy this week but I would like to read the actual papers. I don't even know if they are public but I guess they are.
Apparently they also named actors who are known Allen's friends and allies as stars who doesn't want to work with him again, citing tabloids and out of context quotes. In other words, they also lied!
We will see if their answers to the points they ignored here are better but again this looks very weak.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 5, 2019 15:20:27 GMT
I wasn't accusing you of leaving that paragraph out on purpose, it just that I read it differently. Also, the way it is written showing the lawyers kind of dumb and being Variety, I thought it was possible they were hired to do so. It's true that almost all the cast of his last movie said they regretted working wiith him. Were they going to promote it? It was a dead movie. Wonder Wheel made less than 1,5 millions domestically. WA is poison. Here is the original. I'm going to read it. Motion to dismiss
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 5, 2019 17:17:22 GMT
I didn't feel you were accusing me. I think they mentioned Cate Blanchett who never denounced him. She was one of the actresses attacked by the Farrows. They also mention Michael Caine who denounced him then later retracted it. And I understand that's also the case with Rebecca Hall, who is in the movie. It was widely reported when they two denounced him but not when they retracted. That's why I said it seemed a tabloid article without context. I will try to find Hall's statement. I know it's not easy because you put her name and Allen and the results are mostly about her vowing not to work with hima and donating her salary. But I remember there was more. EDITED: She didn't retracted her early statements. Sorry for that. She just didn't vowed to never worked with him nor wanted to publicly judged him as guilty when she donated her salary. The original statement: Her later sayings: She is more ambiguos about working with Allen in the future than the press said at the time: www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/rebecca-halls-fight-for-nuance-in-the-timesup-era/article37904868/And a recent Michael Caine interview: www.rollingstone.com/music/music-features/michael-caine-interview-winston-churchill-jack-nicholson-beatles-778058/
|
|
|
Post by Home on Apr 5, 2019 18:03:24 GMT
I agree! But this is just an example of the “what ifs?” we keep hearing about from (mostly) men who are now taking a good look at their own bad behaviour. I have yet to read about an innocent man being ruined be a false claim in this #metoo movement. Having Netflix cut ties with Woody Allen is not going to ruin him or his career. I remember the uproar years ago when workplaces had to implement sexual harassment policies: “So now I can’t even compliment my female co-worker’s body without getting into trouble!” and “There aren’t even any women working here, so why can’t we keep telling dirty jokes? They build morale!” and “Our workers love the centrefold pictures we have hanging up! And none of the women have complained, so why can’t we keep them?” We eventually moved from behaviours having to stop if anyone complained, to behaviours having to stop even if no one complained. That applies to racism and sexism and any other -ism, too. And that’s the way it has remained, and people have managed to carry on! Back to Biden - he’ll be fine. Trump was guilty of far worse and still got voted in as president. I’m not a touchy-feely person, but a lot of people are and I have no problem with it, especially if they do it with everyone and not just women. Any time someone floats that “but now men can’t even xyz without getting accused of harassment” silliness , I always direct them to The Rock Test” on medium I think (can’t post the link from my phone for some reason) Basically, if a guy wouldn’t do whatever to Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in the same circumstances, they shouldn’t do it to anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Lee on Apr 5, 2019 18:06:11 GMT
That was me, by the way...Hannah Lee not “Home”
My phone and freeforums are not cooperating today, it seems. LOL
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Apr 5, 2019 22:18:30 GMT
I’m amazed that they actually printed something as nuanced as Rebecca Hall’s thoughts on the matter! It seems people like to adopt a polemic now and be 100% convinced of their own righteousness. I agree with her we’ll prolly never know what happened in that family.
It’s too bad. I’ve always been a fan of WA and love his movies. Now, I just feel weird and don’t know what to think. Good thing, I guess, that his more recent movies have been pretty blah.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Apr 5, 2019 23:15:16 GMT
I think that what Amazon is arguing is that WA comments on poor HW were a big reason why Wonder Wheel was such a flop. I think they're right. I remember the comments on Kate Winslet's press tour.
It doesn't matter if Hall and Caine afterwards changed their tune. It was already done.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Apr 6, 2019 1:41:57 GMT
First, I don't think it's legal to break a contract because one movie bombed. If they thought it wasn't working they should have negotiated with him something and pay him. They signed a contract with him and they were obligated to at least pay him for his time.
Second, it's huge to cite opinions and sayings as the cause. Allen is protected by the first amendment and it seems there wasn't even a morality clause so he was actually free to say anything. And what all those actors said (or not said) is irrelevant.
It's still worrying that they use quotes as examples. It maybe has some logic considering we live in a world in which people can lose their jobs if they say the wrong thing or a few people on social media talk bad of them but I'm not sure it would work in a trial. Remember that they can't defended themselves saying they didn't know about the abuse accusation because everyone knew so now the reason seems to be just some people's opinions.
There are also a few lies in there. Again Cate Blanchett never vowed not to work with him again and even when I have always thought that Allen is indeed bumbling and incapable of explaining himself in a subtle way, he never defended Weinstein!
|
|