MovieChat Forums > Bright (2017) Discussion > Max Landis the latest Hollywood sexual p...

Max Landis the latest Hollywood sexual predator

posted 6 years ago by ebertfan91 (880)
14 replies | jump to latest

Wonder if he'll call Daddy for help.

http://thenerdstash.com/max-landis-sexual-assault/

Not surprising. This is from four years ago:

https://jezebel.com/screenwriter-bro-just-might-be-hollywoods-biggest-fuck-1440597536

[–] Redyetti (142) 6 years ago

That certainly comes off as douchey, but it's not criminal.
This whole trial by social media situation is getting out of hand.
I'm not saying he's innocent, I have no idea either way.
We can't just not have due process though, and the allegations have been extremely vague.
If he really is a predator, he needs to be dealt with through the criminal justice system.
If he's a serial assaulter, then why aren't you filing a police report instead of making vague insinuations on twitter?

[–] CraigJamesReview (1453) 6 years ago

Seems as though the guy has already had his chances and is mostly seen as a pariah and one who got where he is by nepotism. This just throws another log on the fire.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see and if you have any thoughts or criticisms, i'd love to hear them. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here-https://youtu.be/KzZ_p6E-F1w

[–] Redyetti (142) 6 years ago

Irrelevant. Nepotism has nothing to do with sexual assault. Pariah or not, everyone is entitled to due process when accused of a crime.
He's being accused of a serious crime.
Again, I'm not saying he's innocent, but this trend of knee jerk reactions to social media rumors is going to take us down a dangerous path.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Twitter is a public forum. Therefore, if the allegations are untrue, he is welcome to sue for slander and/or libel.

If that doesn't happen, then that means Max is probably afraid of what would come out in court if he were to sue.

Considering there are multiple women verifying the claims, and considering he's one of the most misogynistic pieces of crap in the industry, it's probably true.

He's also the guy who lit the "Mary Sue" fire that so many female-hating Star Wars fans now parrot, most of whom are probably just as sociopathic, dangerous and douchey as Max is.

[–] desepticon (165) 6 years ago

Nepotism? John Landis is a has-been who couldn't get a movie made today if his life depended on it.

[–] Sandoz (2021) 6 years ago

Vic Morrow's life depended on it, and look how that worked out.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 6 years ago

I wish this witch hunt in Hollywood focused more on people like Landis, Weinstein, and Spacey, instead of people like Louis CK, who by all accounts did absolutely nothing wrong.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6908) 6 years ago

I wouldn't say he did nothing wrong. Maybe less wrong than Weinstein and Spacey, but wrong nonetheless. Jury's out on Landis - sure most people think he's an outspoken tool, but sexual assault. That remains to be seen.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 6 years ago

I've read everything on the CK case and in every article it points to him asking their consent, them giving it, and then only following through with the masturbation once they gave it. He played the rules exactly as he was supposed to, and yet he still got thrown under the bus? It can't be that way. It's completely unfair. Call him creepy all you want but he still honored their consent.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6908) 6 years ago

Don't think that's true. Can't see many people okaying what he did, and he has both admitted it was wrong and apologized. If it wasn't wrong, if he had consent, then no admittance of wrong doing or apology would be necessary. From what I've read, he asked them for consent, but if and/or when they declined that didn't stop him and he didn't honour their consent. And 'playing the rules' doesn't actually mean it's rightful what he did. He himself admits it was an abuse of power. He did it coz he could get away with it, and that's that.

I will call him creepy because what he did was creepy. Why are you excusing this? Because he got permission to be a creep from people in lower positions them himself, who were unable to fight back or who were ignored when they did? I don't understand.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 6 years ago

Yes. That's exactly correct. Him being in a position of power, doesn't mean that anyone with less power than him, can't consent. They were of legal age, they were asked permission, and they said yes. And that's when he acted on it. Otherwise you would be arguing that the only way that women can consent is if they're in the same tax bracket as the men in power. Which is utterly ludicrous. Women can't be strong and independent and then also act like a victim when they say yes. Even if they said yes because they were afraid for their careers, that's a risk they have to take as strong and independent women. No one forced them to go along with anything. They had complete and total agency over their decision.

And it doesn't matter of CK himself admitted it was an abuse of power, many people have been forced to make apologies for things that should not have been considered wrong. Just look at the NASA scientist who had to apologize for a swarm of feminists for wearing a shirt that THEY found offensive. All the guy did was wear a shirt. It was his shirt. He's allowed to wear whatever he wants. But because of public pressure, he caved.

Unless he forced himself on them, which you're alleging, but which I have not read any details about, he did nothing wrong. And it's hypocritical to suggest he did. He asked if it's ok to masturbate infront of them, and they either jokingly said yes, or nervously said yes. Either way, they said yes. And it's not unreasonable to expect women to have the power to say no even when they feel pressured.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (6908) 6 years ago

Wow. So you're comparing wearing a t-shirt to not only masturbation, but other sexual misconduct which C.K admits to performing? Just wow. Also I'm not sure what that t-shirt situation has to do with this situation - oh wait nothing. If that's how you're trying to justify someone's bad behaviour though...why?

One of the five women who accused him declined his offer to watch him masterbate, but he still did it anyway. He admits this. Two of the woman who jokingly agreed to watch him tried to leave when he started doing it, but he blocked the entry to the room they were in. He also admits this happened. He did other stuff aside from masterbation, and he admits this. After lying about it of course, to save his ass, because what he did was wrong. He knew it was wrong, which is why he lied, and he has now admitted to what he's been accused of doing. But you don't know this is wrong? I guess we're done then.

[–] not_a_virus.exe (1267) 6 years ago

Why doesn't the comparison work? I'm using it to make a point to prove that people often feel pressured into making an apology where one isn't necessary. OK, if you don't like the t-shirt comparison, how about when Kit Harrington apologized when he said that men suffer sexual assault too? Is that something that he should have apologized for? Was he wrong in anything that he said? If not, then why did he apologize? Surely he must be wrong when mob rule demands he apologize yes?