MovieChat Forums > MagneticMonopole > Replies
MagneticMonopole's Replies
He was definitely an inspiration for Harris, but from what I've heard Fincher say in interviews about the direction and themes of the show, DO NOT expect this to go the way Lambs or Hannibal went, where you have unrealistic comic-book villains in the serial killers.
I found the conclusion less than satisfying, but I'm all in for season two to have those questions answered. Hope they renew it.
"That would be all fine and dandy if they didn't prod themselves up as moral arbiters."
Provide a specific example with citations from responsible journalistic sources.
"You think it's acceptable to just accept sexual misconduct in the workplace in order to get your leg up?"
No one is saying this. This is all happening in your imagination.
"The hypocrisy of Hollywood is what is so infuriating. "
What's just as infuriating is the fake outrage from sexists pigs like yourself who possess not one ounce of empathy for what real women go through in these situations.
"You completely understand that these women have traded in their souls to the devil in order to maintain their careers and somehow don't blame them for it? "
Here you go being an hysterical child who doesn't know how adult decisions are made or how the adult world works. They filed lawsuits which were settled under the condition of silence. This is quite common in and outside of the entertainment industry and only a ridiculous moron would compare it to selling their souls to the devil.
You don't know at all--AT ALL--what efforts they might have taken outside of the public eye to warn others about what Weinstein had going on. Case in point, I just listened to an interview with someone who studies workplace harassment for a living and it turns out that women often form tight knit "whispering circles" in an effort to protect one another from known predators. We know something like that was developing around this pig and almost certainly women who had won settlements were part of it.
When powerful men have the ability to destroy or harm careers in a system that supports them more than their victims, and where it is incredibly difficult for them to get justice within that system, since it is run by men, sometimes this is the better option.
Your TV movie fantasy of heroic people who "do the right thing" and sacrifice their dreams is not part of the functioning world. Again, you don't know what it is like to have to make these kinds of choices. And you obviously are only pretending to care. Please, don't even put on this act where you have genuine concerns about "rape culture". You don't have anything that even approaches real empathy for women in these situations--it shows.
"What does need to be said however is how hypocritical this world is. "
That isn't your agenda, pumpkin, as anyone with eyes can see. Your real agenda is to make victims of sexual harassment feel worse. You clearly have more sympathy for Weinstein than you do for them, and you aren't fooling anyone about that.
No one with any kind of moral intelligence would somehow equate women who took settlements with their abuser's activities. The adults in the room recognize that the real world involves grey areas and tough choices where women up against powerful men have to navigate treacherous waters if they want to have successful careers. But you aren't, mentally or ethically, much of an adult at all.
The real hypocrisy is to be found in people who claim to hold the moral high ground but who actively protected Weinstein and his activities by hounding journalists to stop them from publishing stories. If hypocrisy was ever really your agenda, you'd be restricting your comments and fake outrage to that.
But you really and obviously don't give a crap at all about the issue.
"But to use that as a reason as to why they remained silent just makes them look like the shallow, greedy, selfish degenerates that they are. "
Until you have lived life in the positions these victims were put in and experienced what it is like to be forced to make such life changing choices, you have absolutely zero moral authority or credibility to speak of. Reading your posts inclines me to think you have a child's understanding of how the adult world works in all its complexity.
And that fact that you would spend so much time condemning Weinstein's victims rather than Weinstein himself tells us all everything we need to know about your true ethical sensibilities and real agenda.
And of course, Lindsay Lohan is known for her psychological stability and accuracy, isn't she? I supposed you get medical advise from your plumber, too.
"3. J law is overrated, she is decent but her oscar was paid for just like others before."
She's received more awards and awards nominations than any other actor, male or female, in her generation. You can't buy that.
Lawrence has said he never harassed her. By the time she worked for his company, she was already on her way to becoming a major star and wouldn't have needed a single favor from him. You have no evidence that contradicts her.
Case closed, troll.
"Explain for example Mira Sorvino's career. . ."
No, we're going to stay on subject.
Lawrence has said he never harassed her. By the time she worked for his company, she was already on her way to becoming a major star and wouldn't have needed a single favor from him. You have no evidence that contradicts her.
Case closed, troll.
"Even so, why are so fucking overtly hostile and defensive (quickly labeling people as "trolls" and "vile") of and over Jennifer Lawrence!? "
Because you are, objectively, a vile troll, and I have no patience for worthless idiots who spread baseless lies, which is all you do. In one post a while back, your "source" based their information on reading fucking Tarot cards. You have no intellectual standards whatsoever.
"So just because she only worked with Weinstein on one movie from five years ago, we're just suppose to automatically look the other way, no questions asked!?"
In the complete absence of any evidence to suggest she was lying when she said she wasn't hit on by him, there is nothing to "look the other way about" and you have no justification for "asking questions"--other than that you are a vile troll.
Anyone who has followed the Weinstein controversy knows that this pig only preyed on young actresses early in their careers who had no power. The one and only time she worked for him, she was already a very successful actress and had plenty of power. Plus, she's very strong willed and not a shrinking violet. She's the last person he would have tried to abuse.
Jennifer Lawrence isn't "attached to this". She worked on one film he produced five years ago on the basis of the director loving her Skype audition and was not harassed. She didn't even thank him at the Oscars. That's the end of the story.
The issue here isn't Weinstein's behavior, the issue is YOUR behavior of spreading lies with no basis in fact.
Objective reality and you don't get along, do they?
"If I'm "vile" then what does that make Harvey Weinstein!?"
He's far worse, but you are basically a garbage human for spreading baseless, sexist rumors from sources that are absurdly unreliable.
That is not an intellectually curious, innocent "question". It is BS from a mindless gossip site. Apparently you've never heard of the concept of "evidence" and it plays no role in your thinking.
So the Tarot-card reading idiot you enabled thinks Lawrence's fame "came out of nowhere", with the insidious suggestion that somehow this was all Weinstein's doing.
Strike one--the talent scouts she met with as a teen immediately told her parents that she was the most talented 14 year old they had ever met. This judgment was repeated time and time again whomever they brought her to.
Strike two--She was getting awards and nominations from her very first film, made without any connection with Weinstein.
Strike three--She got the role for Silver Linings Playbook on the basis of a remote Skype audition and director David Russell's enthusiasm. Three different directors have openly described her as the Michael Jordan of acting.
Strike four--whatever the idiot you quoted thinks, her performances have been routinely praised by film critics, so her frequent awards nominations were predictable for anyone with a working brain.
But again, you don't deal with facts. You're just a vile troll who doesn't have a care in the world for reality.
I took those definitions straight out of Merriam Webster, you knuckle-dragging idiot Trump troll.
Keep on embarrassing yourself in a public space. It's entertaining.
Another troll bot posting complete and utter BS on the net.
It's hilarious watching idiots whine about non-whites appearing in movies. Get used to it, pumpkin--whites are soon going to be the minority in the US.
"I also believe he used the new testament as well. If you're going to use characters in a book at least include the main one. as frogorama mention i may understand why."
Satan is not a major character in the NT. That would be Jesus, who does indeed make a brief appearance in the movie.
Just admit that you randomly pulled this nonsense out of your arse and couldn't back it up with evidence if your life depended on it.