| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 962.1 | | 2155::michaud | The Fly | Mon Oct 30 1995 00:12 | 9 |
| > .... and might miss the full emotional impact the
> director is pushing for, ....
Speaking of the director, some groups started boycotting this
movie (and/or Disney) before it opened because the director
had is alleged to of mollested a child not too long ago
(or was it a couple of years ago?) on the set of another movie.
Maybe he's trying to follow in Woody's footsteps ....
|
| 962.2 | We liked it! | REFDV1::MURPHY | Symbolic stack dump follows... | Mon Oct 30 1995 10:50 | 16 |
| It was like Nell, with special effects. Lots of similarities; One
word title, the name of the primary character. a special child that
is found after his/her parent or guardian dies. Two people
for different reasons attach to the child and try to make things
better. Although "Nell" stuck to the point and was a much better
story, my wife and I were enormously entertained by "Powder". Of
course, this was the first time we had been out without our 18 month
old in months! We probably would have been entertained byu "True Lies"
for that matter :-) (no... just kidding)
Powder was one of those "feel good -- feel bad -- feel good again --
ooops... feel bad again (and so on)" movies that has the potential of
being very entertaining.
Steve
|
| 962.3 | convicted child molester | GUESS::DOUCETTE | More Chuck for the buck! | Mon Oct 30 1995 10:58 | 12 |
| The director of Powder is a convicted child molester who video taped
at least one victim.
The child who he molested is now in his 20s and is protesting the release
of the film.
Others are joining in the protest.
Disney states that the director has served his jail term and (at least for now)
stands behind him.
Chuck
|
| 962.5 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Got into a war with reality ... | Mon Oct 30 1995 11:13 | 5 |
|
Note 910 could be used for "spoiler" discussions.
[Non-moderator, but I care a heck of alot. 8^)]
|
| 962.6 | not me | SWAM1::MEUSE_DA | | Mon Oct 30 1995 22:17 | 13 |
|
After listening to the kid that was molested by the director of this
film, I will pass on seeing it. Molested from age 8 to age 12.
15 months for 4 years of molesting is a crime in itself. All the
work of some high priced lawyers.
Let the pervert take somebody else's money.
Walt would have canned the guy.
|
| 962.7 | | 2155::michaud | Richard Nixon | Tue Oct 31 1995 01:55 | 23 |
| > After listening to the kid that was molested by the director of this
> film, I will pass on seeing it.
I hope you also pass on going to Catholic churches because
of the number of priests who are also child molestors? ....
> Let the pervert take somebody else's money.
.... the point being this director already has his money.
Boycotting this film won't have the desired effect ....
> Walt would have canned the guy.
.... as Disney from what I've heard didn't know about the
directors criminal record until last week ....
In any case everyone should know by now that boycotting films
help a film by giving it free publicity (remember "Nine
Months" with Huey, a film that would of completely bombed
had it not been for Divine Brown). As the Digital marketing
person said in a presentation I was at several years ago ...
"Any publicity is good publicity"
|
| 962.8 | | SPSEG::COVINGTON | serpent deflector | Tue Oct 31 1995 09:54 | 3 |
| > Walt would have canned the guy.
Or caned him.
|
| 962.9 | | UHUH::MARISON | Scott Marison | Tue Oct 31 1995 10:39 | 21 |
| I can't speak for the original noter, but... my comments...
>> After listening to the kid that was molested by the director of this
>> film, I will pass on seeing it.
>
> I hope you also pass on going to Catholic churches because
> of the number of priests who are also child molestors? ....
I know I would pass on going to a church if the speaking priest was known
to have molested kids... You anology is flawed - the original noter didn't
say he'll pass on all movies, just the one directed by this director.
>> Let the pervert take somebody else's money.
>
> .... the point being this director already has his money.
> Boycotting this film won't have the desired effect ....
Unless boycotting the film causes the film company to loose money in which
case film companies may no longer wish to use that director.
/scott
|
| 962.10 | | 2155::michaud | Michael Jackson | Tue Oct 31 1995 14:34 | 29 |
| >>> After listening to the kid that was molested by the director of this
>>> film, I will pass on seeing it.
>> I hope you also pass on going to Catholic churches because
>> of the number of priests who are also child molestors? ....
> I know I would pass on going to a church if the speaking priest was known
> to have molested kids... You anology is flawed - the original noter didn't
> say he'll pass on all movies, just the one directed by this director.
Analogy is not flawed, you just missed the analogy in the contect
of my whole reply. In this analogy Disney, the company that will
be hurt (and the actors, etc etc) , is no different than the church.
The protests should be directed specifically at the director, not
at the innocent also involved in the project. Another analogy.
If your sibling robbed a bank and murdered the guard, your sibling
is the one to blame, not necessary you and your entire family.
> Unless boycotting the film causes the film company to loose money in which
> case film companies may no longer wish to use that director.
This would would fine on the *next* project this director tries
to do. But I haven't heard one accusation that said that Disney
knew of this directors past until after the film was made.
This is without even bringing up the subject of whether of
not the real criminal (the person who was the director)
has paid their debt to society and whether or not they
are reabilitated...... (or whether the real criminal is
this person, or was this person just a victum themselves ....)
|
| 962.11 | | BUSY::SLABOUNTY | Consume feces and expire. | Tue Oct 31 1995 14:58 | 8 |
|
>If your sibling robbed a bank and murdered the guard, your sibling
>is the one to blame, not necessary you and your entire family.
Bad analogy. Her problems are a direct result of her up-bringing.
And if you don't believe me, wait until the trial.
|
| 962.12 | | BSS::BRUNO | Burly Computer Nerd | Wed Nov 01 1995 09:02 | 12 |
| <<< Note 962.10 by 2155::michaud "Michael Jackson" >>>
>> Analogy is not flawed, you just missed the analogy in the contect
>> of my whole reply. In this analogy Disney, the company that will
>> be hurt (and the actors, etc etc) , is no different than the church.
Still flawed. Boycotting this director's film can reasonably only
be compared to boycotting particular priests' masses, NOT the entire
Catholic church. Disney is not being suggested for boycott, therefore
their injury is limited to the scope of their employment of this director.
Greg
|
| 962.13 | sidetracking | REFDV1::MURPHY | Symbolic stack dump follows... | Wed Nov 01 1995 09:34 | 9 |
| alright then...
lets move this conversation to the flawed analogy notesconference
(RATHLE::FLAWED_ANALOGY), not to be confused with the Food Allergy
notesconference (MANGE::FOOD_ALLERGY)
This is a discussion about the movie "Powder".
:-)
Steve
|
| 962.14 | S&E gave thumbs down | REFDV1::MURPHY | Symbolic stack dump follows... | Thu Nov 09 1995 09:40 | 12 |
|
Siskel and Ebert really hated it.
They sited that no one seemed to get the point. Here's a guy who can
absorb electricity and perform sensational tricks - and everyone still
hates him.
I admit... it's sensational, and full of holes, but it's entertaining.
Don't listen to everything you hear.
Steve
|