I don't approve of any of them being on that island, especially the politicians, but I also refuse to believe the likes of Carrey, Spielberg and Hanks, or indeed Obama, are sex pests/predators, without any definite evidence. Maybe it's my bias speaking here, but I refuse to believe it, at least without definite proof (and I think a lot of people are inclined to believe it because they have a grudge against these 'elite' individuals, and the Democratic Party, which a few of them are aligned with).
Unfortunately, I can see Tarantino being more of a shady type, although once again that doesn't mean he's slept with underage girls.
And even Kevin Spacey is a gay man, who has been accused of assualting underage boys, but didn't Epstein and Maxwell exploit girls, rather than boys/men?
That said, if any of them were on the island, it would be in their interests to hold their hands up straight away and say "Yes, I was associated with Epstein, but, no, it had nothing to do with child exploitation, and I'm sorry I didn't see what was going on, and that will always be on my conscience, but I didn't personally abuse anyone [and I wasn't aware of what was happening]."
Honestly, if Spielberg and/or Hanks were proven to be sex offenders, I'd seriously consider suicide. Yes, I know some of you would say that's a 'bit' extreme, but I don't have much going on in my life. Pop culture, especially the films I grew up with, like E.T. and Big (etc) is what sustains me, so I'd hate to discover they were built off the foundations of sexual predators' imaginations. Plus, a lot of people have said I remind them of Tom Hanks, and I can 100% confirm that I am NO sex offender.
reply
share
Lucia2016 (522)
a year ago
I feel you there and i agree 100 percent it really would take a huge shit on most of my childhood memories
But i would rather not live in denial so as uncomfortable as it would be i need to know.
It doesn't really matter if Spacey is gay or nor the point is if you are accused of murder and seen out bowling with Gacy, Dahmer and Bundy what's one to think?
who know's what the fuck else was on that Island as always we only get a snippet of the whole truth, Could of been the entire Cast of Oliver Twist chained up for all we know.
Tarantino/Speilgburg have no smoking guns or things that you can say are 100 percent fact with QT it'as more a vibe, things he puts in his films which look questionable and of course that interview he once gave saying Polanski's 13 year old wasn't raped she was up for it and liked it.
With Speilgburg it's more rumours but a lot of rumours there is the one that iv'e heard a lot over the years that he was directly responsible for the death of the little Poltergiest girl with other producers to the more recent factual things like his adopted daughter recently turning to porn and saying she was abused by 'someone' as a chid.
Same with Hanks nothing concrete but like they say in Inglorious Bastards- 'Facts can often be misleading whereas rumours whether true or false are often revealing'
I am capable to an extent of divorcing my feelings from the creator to the person, i love Rosemary's Baby, still watch Tarantino and i like Jeepers Creepers knowing full well about the director, it's a bit icky but i have to do it. Now i watch with a pinch of salt and enjoy the films but am aware enough never to get sucked in to much by any ideology
I never liked Spielgburg films so ain't losing to much there but Jim Carrey was like an older brother/father in way as daft as that sounds to a lot of people
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
'Facts can often be misleading whereas rumours whether true or false are often revealing'
Well, the irony here, as someone who hopes Tarantino isn't a sex offender, and is mostly a fan of his work, is that I don't particularly care for Inglorious Bastards or this moronic line. Facts should ALWAYS take precedence over BS hunches.
As for Polanski, I never felt a great affinity to his work, in the same way I do with Spielberg or Hanks', for instance, because Polanski was arrested for statutory rape before I was born, and his best days as a filmmaker had mostly passed by the time I was born.
By contrast, Spielberg and Hanks not only informed a large part of my childhood, unlike Tarantino, whose work I also (mostly) like, there is real warmth and affection to many of their films. I'd feel a real sense of betrayal if either of these men were revealed to be remotely shady.
Looking back at those people who have been revealed as 'monsters', Weinstein, who I never cared for, was a behind-the-scenes money man, and not a proper artist (albeit someone, who was unfortunately instrumental in getting many great films produced), R Kelly made a few okay songs but is not someone I have any particular care for, Cosby however was much more of a shock, and he did seem to be everyone's TV dad. Woody Allen would be a big disappointment if it appeared he had actually abused his adopted daughter (because he's made some of my all-time favourite films), however, I can also see how he might be a somewhat shady character. One doesn't get the same sense of warmth from him that one gets from Spielberg and Hanks, as much as Allen's films resonate with me, for the most part. Spacey was another huge disappointment, but seeing as he mostly played ethically suspect characters, it's hardly tarnished his onscreen work (which is not to say that is the most important thing in all this, but it is the thing that directly affects us, as moviegoers...and for what it's worth, as someone who has been..
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
...on the personal receiving end of abuse, it's not as if I don't care; it's just that for me these films, TV shows, and songs are an *escape* from all the horrors and sadness one has to contend with in real-life. Maybe it's a poor reflection on me that I haven't been able to 'grow up', but when I was being abused (in one case, sexually) and bullied as a kid, movies were a welcome escape for me, so it would actually hurt my ability to escape from my own sadness, were I to discover that any of these people were abusers.
Maybe I'm being selfish here, but I'm not sure who's interest that would be in. Certainly not *THIS* abuse survivor's...
As for the individual charges, a lot of people have, stupidly, simped for Polanski. They're amoral assholes for doing so, but I don't think it makes them all rapists/child abusers *themselves*.
And is it possible that Spielberg's adopted daughter was abused before her adoption? What age was she adopted? That said, I don't think turning to porn is in itself a sign that someone has been abused. But Hollywood is a weird place, and they have different values and limits to the rest of society. Exhibitionism is not such a weird thing if one was raised in that environment. Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards' daughter recently started an OnlyFans account, for instance, and as big an asshole as Sheen is, I don't believe either Sheen or Richards sexually abused their daughter. In fact, look at Charlie Sheen himself. His dad seems to be a paragon of virtue, and Emilio Estevez turned out reasonably normal, but, for whatever reason, Charlie became a coke-and-prostitutes-addicted-wacko.
reply
share
Lucia2016 (522)
a year ago
Well Basterds is probably my least favourite film of his, but that moronic line is the only thing to resonate with me. That and I must say, that's damn good scotch! I guess i am a moron.
But as a Man your wits and your insticts are all you really have and if you betray those then you can become easy prey. Facts can be manipulated a good lawyer doesn't care if your guilty or not he will say what he needs to win. all within the legal realms of telling 'factual' things.
News reporters and Polititians are technically telling the truth while at the same time feeding us absolute Dog shit, i don't get your point, facts can most definitely be misleading, every lie has a grain of truth.
Instincts meanwhile are pure truth, that feeling you get when you meet someone new and somethings off with them. 99 times out of a 100 you end up finding out they are no good.
Most of these people in Question it's there on the wall put together with whispers you can make your own decision. But if you have the vibes and some knowledge but you decide to ignore it because you don't have concrete evidence then that's naive and if in real life personally potentially dangerous
Shoot first apologize after
reply
share
HarveyManFredSin (4877)
a year ago
That's why I don't like lawyers...and I say that as someone who is legally qualified and was an advocate for a good few years...
Still, I prefer to rely on facts. Yes, facts can be lied about and manipulated, but then they're not actual facts, are they?
But instinct means nothing. It is just a vibe, often based on one's prejudices. We all possess instinct, and in the absence of hard facts, it's often all we have to go on, but given the choice, I'll always choose cold, hard, rational facts over a damn feeling.
I'm a staunch leftist and I'll be the first to say "**** your feelings" (not you personally, but in general). Of course, that's an exaggeration; I do care about offending a person's feelings, but ultimately they shouldn't take objective precedence over perceivable facts, and this whole 'my truth' narrative has to be challenged. Yes, we're all beset by our feelings, but that being the case, no one is then entitled to say "My feelings trump *your* feelings." If I have a 'feeling' that someone is being a bigot to me, should my feelings take precedence over the person who claims they don't feel they were being rude?
reply
share
Lucia2016 (522)
a year ago
I hear what you're saying but i don't think it's that black and white, in a lot of cases, most particularly things like this case involving such high power players, we are never going to get cold hard facts because too many people are involved and too much is at risk, so every trick in the book will be played to delay and drip feed what little facts they deem appropriate for the peasants and the law to know.
So us as outsiders looking in only have bit's and pieces of the puzzle and the rest is up to us too put together. Does that mean anything in the court of Law? does it fuck, but just for our own personal feelings about someone i can say if i think somebody is more likely guilty of something or not based on the circumstances and the company of others connected.
You are well within your right to say well until i see photographs or this person gets charged then i will give the benefit of the doubt,, but come on Victor Salva,,Dan Scneider, Kevin Rapey
reply
share
Lucia2016 (522)
a year ago
I hear what you're saying but i don't think it's that black and white, in a lot of cases, most particularly things like this case involving such high power players, we are never going to get cold hard facts because too many people are involved and too much is at risk, so every trick in the book will be played to delay and drip feed what little facts they deem appropriate for the peasants and the law to know.
So us as outsiders looking in only have bit's and pieces of the puzzle and the rest is up to us too put together. Does that mean anything in the court of Law? does it fuck, but just for our own personal feelings about someone i can say if i think somebody is more likely guilty of something or not based on the circumstances and the company of others connected.
You are well within your right to say well until i see photographs or this person gets charged then i will give the benefit of the doubt,, but come on Victor Salva,,Dan Scneider, Kevin Rapey
reply
share