Movie Mogul accusation and the dark side of Hollywood

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
Hollywood really has a dark side...eh?

If only he'd been a Republican, he could have been President.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
Jimmy Kinmel’s response to a certain family member really was perfect.

There is no way this thread won’t become political, since the whole issue has been normalized and made acceptable by politics. Im guessing that the political implications (he was a heavy donor to the left, who mostly stayed silent since the news broke) is part of the reason why whembly was interested enough in this event to start a thread.

Weird there wasn't a thread for Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly or Eric Bolling though, huh?

I guess there are some very fine people on both sides.

d-usa wrote:
Heartbreaking really, I don’t care how much money he pushed their way. Their silence after the fact is a stain on all of them.

Yes, it's terrible. I will never understand why people go to bat for people who do stuff like this. The last wave of Roman Polanski news, and there were still people defending a man who drugged and raped a child. There are still people who claim that Bill Cosby is innocent and that all those women made it up for money, despite the fact if 9 out of 10 of them were making it up (an utterly impossible number), you'd still have like 6 rapes.

As an update, Harvey Weinstein's wife has announced she is filing for divorce.

**Ouze**

d-usa wrote:
Meh, it’s less that entertainment elites and famous people are not known for this. We all know they can grab them by the pussy, get away with it, and become president.

The real story, and relevance to become a thread, is that he donates to Democrats like crazy. And Democrats have not really spoken out against him or send his donations to an anti-sexual assault non-profit.

FWIW HRC came out against him today, but has not said if she will be refunding or donating out his contributions yet. I imagine that will happen in a wave now.

**Ouze**

No, I have no reason to think that. I'm not sure what I wrote to imply that.

**Ouze**

Yeah, i think it's less about shared culpability, so much as it's the standard thing to do - like how every company that is caught doing something bad automatically says they are "taking it very seriously", or when you feel bad about something but don't feel like doing anything, you send "thoughts and prayers" - it's a meaningless but expected gesture.

**Ouze**

The Terry Crews thing is incredible.

**Ouze**

No, I mean... I believe him. I totally believe him. It's just incredible. I mean, I can see someone sexually assaulting an 18 year old female actress, but Terry Crews... man.

**Ouze**

You know, in a crappy roundabout way, this might improve the US for the better. Look at the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, for example, and the conversation that was started about workplace sexual harassment. The net gain was that people are now generally far more aware that they don't need to tolerate this kind of behavior in the workplace, just as Justice Thomas was able to cast a deciding vote in weakening legal protections for sexual harassment in the workplace... um, well, there is more awareness now, anyway, I guess is the silver lining I was fishing for.

**Ouze**

cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

**Ouze**

cuda1179 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
cuda1179 wrote:
I think the issue is the statute of limitation. I think the limit on that is 5 years, which puts most of the accusers far outside the ability to press charges.

I had hoped after the Cosby case we'd have seen a wider removal on the statue of limitations on sexual assault - there was, but only a little in a few states. Perhaps this will spur a little more in that direction.

I REALLY don't want statutes of limitations to be lifted. I want these women to have justice, but not at the expense of due process and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial. For example, in the Cosby case, I think the guy is a total POS, and likely did it. However, if I was on a jury I'd probably vote not guilty based on the time it took to come forward. Speaking as a someone who was also victimized, I sympathize, but prosecution must happen in a timely manner.

What exactly is the value to society of giving sex offenders a free pass if you wait long enough?

**Ouze**

Yeah I've definitely on the side of no statute of limitations for some crimes, and sexual assault seems like a no-brainer to me, especially given how we now understand that there are a variety of compelling reasons victims do not come forward right away.

cuda1179 wrote:
I REALLY don't want statutes of limitations to be lifted. I want these women to have justice, but not at the expense of due process and the rights of the accused to have a fair trial. For example, in the Cosby case, I think the guy is a total POS, and likely did it. However, if I was on a jury I'd probably vote not guilty based on the time it took to come forward. Speaking as a someone who was also victimized, I sympathize, but prosecution must happen in a timely manner.

16 states in the US already have no SOL for rape or sexual assault. 27 states extend the SOL if DNA comes forward. Some of the states that do have a SOL extend it out as far as 30 years. This isn't a particularly new or extreme idea, and I'd like to see it streamlined across the rest of the country.

I live on the Iowa/Illinois border, and I can't see the sense that if a child is molested and doesn't come forward for 4 years, the perpetrator will be prosecuted here, but would be free to molest again if they live 5 miles away across the river.

**Ouze**

OgreChubbs wrote:
I never heard anyone say he threatened them just bribe them....

The one girl I seen said she did things for a job and money..... Doesn't that just mean she is just a prostitute.

Your opinions are consistently garbage and you should be ashamed for expressing them in a public forum.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
A predator never stops at just one.

If only! I mean, the second one wasn't terrible, but once they started the crossovers with Aliens.... eeeek.

**Ouze**

OgreChubbs wrote:
Ouze wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I never heard anyone say he threatened them just bribe them....

The one girl I seen said she did things for a job and money..... Doesn't that just mean she is just a prostitute.

Your opinions are consistently garbage and you should be ashamed for expressing them in a public forum.
They did an act for money and roles, whether you consider that act reasonable is upto you but ovbiously they did.

Also no shame in not following the sheep. In my book he is a pig for doing such things while married and deserves to lose everything and they are flewzies who will do anything for a moment of fame.

Looks like you're OK with him having done these things if he wasn't married, and the women he coerced are equally guilty, huh?

4 of the women involved have now accused him of flat-out rape.

I feel very, very comfortable in reiterating that the opinions you expressed here are both hot garbage, and consistent with your posting habits.

**Ouze**

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
There's still a part of me who wants it all to be a misunderstanding, so I can see how hard it can be to believe the accusations when they first start. Only once there is a substantial number of corroborating stories does it really feel true.

I know exactly how you feel, because that is how I feel about Louis CK.

**Ouze**

Fox News is running an op-ed that states that a media company that harbors serial sexual harassers should be shut down.

Totally, wholeheartedly agree, guys.

**Ouze**

The idea that you can't be in a room with a woman who isn't your wife is weird AF, and as a professional, it's more than a bit unreasonable to exclude women from business dinners and other functions because you're afraid you can't control yourself. They're people, not objects with magical powers.

**Ouze**

sebster wrote:
Though I'd say this is actually more cynical than just getting the base to remain afraid of Democrats because they have a donor who was a sex predator. I think it's about trying to nullify the sex abuse allegations against Trump, and against multiple people at FOX News. The ploy is that if they can make a big enough deal about this then they'll manage to mud stuck to both sides and thereby negate it as an issue. It's pretty goofy to try and say the because a donor to one party was a sex predator for years, then it doesn't matter that the other side's president is a sex predator, but it does seem to be working.

So what you're saying is....

both sides are equally bad

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
But, I think we all do a good job calling 'em out on both sides too.

Yes, that's why you've started threads on Bill O'Reilly, Eric Bolling, and Roger Ailes.

In your defense as a Fox News viewer, you might not be aware any of those things happened.

Get real. Your concern over celebrity sexual assault scandals started the second you could use it as a political attack on a wealthy democratic donor.

**Ouze**

NenkotaMoon wrote:
Man, if women marched against Trump for allegedly saying something sexual, can't wait for the even bigger marches on Hollywood.... crickets..... O' well, good ol' Hollywood.

I think you might see more people marching against Harvey Weinstein if their paychecks were currently being taxed to support his lifestyle, and if he was currently empowered to make institutional changes that greatly affect their lives.

TBH it's a pretty terrible comparison.

(edit aw, Sebster said it better)

**Ouze**

This story is really growing. The consolation for what happened with Harvey Weinstein is that a lot of sunlight is being cast on some pretty odious stuff.

Marianne Barnard has said that Roman Polanski molested her when she was 10 years old. She would be the 4th woman to accuse him of sexual assaults.

More than 200 women have accused director James Toback of sexual harassment.

Bill O'Reilly has found the real villain in his many, many sexual harassments - God.

**Ouze**

Ahtman wrote:
I guess O'reilly said no one ever complained but Megyn Kelly said that was bull and produced an email showing she reported his behavior.

Too bad she sat on that revelation until her career was in dire straights and she needed a publicity boost. It might have helped out a lot of other women at the time if she had said "this happened to me, too". If she wasn't comfortable doing that, and I would understand that, she at least could have said "I believe these women". She was in a very powerful position at the time, "the time" being when the network was attacking women she worked with.

**Ouze**

I'm not a lawyer but an NDA that covers sexual assault sounds like a classic unenforceable contract.

**Ouze**

Easy E wrote:
President is accused of Sexual Assault and apologizes! No not, that President the other President!

http://www.newsweek.com/george-hw-bush-apologizes-after-sex-assault-allegation-692368

Former President George H.W. Bush has apologized for an “attempt at humor” after being accused of sexual assault by actress Heather Lind.

It is now spreading out of Hollywood and into Washington! Our thread is now imperiled!

Out of all of them this one surprised me the most to be honest.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Because its BS if you really read it. The claim was touched her FROM behind not touched her behind, and has since been retracted by the accuser.

Welllll...

A second woman has come forward with allegations that she was groped by George H.W. Bush, after actress Heather Lind said this week that the former president touched her from behind while telling her a dirty joke in 2014.

New York actress Jordana Grolnick has also now accused Bush of a similar incident in 2016, in which he allegedly fondled her during a photo op.

Grolnick said: “He reached his right hand around to my behind, and as we smiled for the photo he asked the group, ‘Do you want to know who my favorite magician is?’ As I felt his hand dig into my flesh, he said, ‘David Cop-a-Feel!’”

Bush spokesperson Jim McGrath said in a statement that, because President Bush has been in a wheelchair for five years, his arm falls on the “lower waist.” He continued, “To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke—and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner.

Some have seen it as innocent; others clearly view it as inappropriate. To anyone he has offended, President Bush apologizes most sincerely.”

**Ouze**

I think most people aren't going to think the fact that Spacey is gay is relevant to the fact he apparently tried to hook up with a minor child. I'm not really sure why, in 2017, he think's he'll be able to deflect that in that way.

**Ouze**

Wanda Sykes said "don't try to hide behind the rainbow", which I thought was well-put.

One aspect about this that is especially unfortunately is that by trying to shield himself in this way, he dredges up long debunked myths that gay people are likely to be pedophiles.

djones520 wrote:
It rarely is though...

Yeah if there is anything this increased awareness has reiterated, that is it.

**Ouze**

I have to wonder if House of Cards wasn't just about done anyway. I stopped watching it a few years ago - I think I only ever watched the first 2 seasons - but as I understand it, he played an ambitious politician, and he eventually wound up POTUS, right? Not sure where you go from there - Tom Clancy painted himself into the exact same corner many years ago with Jack Ryan.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The Spacey thing was an open secret. I have friends who say he hit on them. they were even somewhat warned beforehand to watch out for him, and they were just extras.

TBH I thought he had come out like, 20 years ago.

**Ouze**

Easy E wrote:
They final caught up to Brett Ratner afterall.....

http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-brett-ratner-allegations-20171101-htmlstory.html

Natasha Henstridge's allegation at the start of the story are..... unpleasant.

What Brett Ratner did to the X-men franchise is the real crime.

**Ouze**

That Rose Mcgowan drug thing seemed shady AF from the very beginning.