Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Who had John Lasseter?

Oh that's right. Nobody. It's really gonna be everyone, isn't it?

Sonic Youth wrote:

I'm overwhelmed by all the hot takes here.

Always avoiding the main points, right, Sonic Youth? But of course vilifying people is easier...

ITALIANO wrote:

Sonic Youth wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:
As I've said before, there's a witch hunt going on that will take the innocent with the guilty.

But is it a witch hunt if it takes the guilty? The meaning of the phrase, I thought, was for something that's a massive and complete fabrication. Not a single person accused in the Salem Witch Hunts was an actual witch.

Maybe because witches don't exist...?

I'm overwhelmed by all the hot takes here.

Sonic Youth wrote:

Big Magilla wrote:
As I've said before, there's a witch hunt going on that will take the innocent with the guilty.

But is it a witch hunt if it takes the guilty? The meaning of the phrase, I thought, was for something that's a massive and complete fabrication. Not a single person accused in the Salem Witch Hunts was an actual witch.

Maybe because witches don't exist...?

The idea that if it takes the guilty along with the innocent then it must have some raison d'etre is a grotesque one. This isn't The Scarlet Letter anymore - this is An American Tragedy. In more ways than one.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu ... ds-1059752

Nate Parker cannot be compared to Casey Affleck. The difference of the allegations are worlds apart.

Three major points for me are that:

1) Nate Parker made a crappy film that deserved to die critically and commercially based solely on it's own 'merits' or in this case lack of;

2) Casey Affleck's Oscar win was well earned. It's actually high on my list of most deserved Oscar wins (ditto Roman Polanski's director award for The Pianist);

3) And that is what the Oscar's should be about: awarding the best of the year, which they usually don't get right. Not based on personal actions from the past. They are not running for political office!

Mister Tee wrote:The Charlie Rose allegations -- like the Weinstein ones, and the Jeremy Piven ones -- are really serious, and seemingly broadly enough backed to merit presumption of likely guilt. But they just underscore what weak sauce the Franken accusations are. Yet there are lefties who are ready to toss Al over the side in the name of high purity (much like they once were ready to jettison Shirley Sherrod -- remember her?)

As long as there are politicians like John Conyers, Al is safe.

If you're going to be accused of groping, make sure it happens in the morning. Chances are, by the end of the day you'll look more like William Jennings Bryan.

Mister Tee wrote:The Charlie Rose allegations -- like the Weinstein ones, and the Jeremy Piven ones -- are really serious, and seemingly broadly enough backed to merit presumption of likely guilt. But they just underscore what weak sauce the Franken accusations are. Yet there are lefties who are ready to toss Al over the side in the name of high purity (much like they once were ready to jettison Shirley Sherrod -- remember her?). They also seem to want to -- I don't know -- designate Bill Clinton an official Bad Guy (for actions that took place before many of them were even following politics)?

It brings to mind the old joke, A liberal is someone so open-minded he refuses to take his own side in an argument.

Exactly. I had to change the channel on Mika Brzezinski this morning. I don't know if I'll ever watch Morning Joe again.

She went a tirade in support of Kirstin Gillibrand this morning that included her oft given rant that Hillary needs to go away, that Bill Clinton is still making money when he should have been run out of the White House when all those women came forward in the 90s. She had a fit over Trump's tweet that Hillary should run again in 2020, not because Trump was being an asshole (as usual) but because she couldn't take another Hillary run.

The Charlie Rose allegations -- like the Weinstein ones, and the Jeremy Piven ones -- are really serious, and seemingly broadly enough backed to merit presumption of likely guilt. But they just underscore what weak sauce the Franken accusations are. Yet there are lefties who are ready to toss Al over the side in the name of high purity (much like they once were ready to jettison Shirley Sherrod -- remember her?). They also seem to want to -- I don't know -- designate Bill Clinton an official Bad Guy (for actions that took place before many of them were even following politics)?

It brings to mind the old joke, A liberal is someone so open-minded he refuses to take his own side in an argument.

If a dictionary says that's what "Witch Hunt" means, then I suppose I have to defer to it. Sometimes it's hard to tell with a colloquialism.

BTW, I just read that Harvey Weinstein's lawyer also used to be Charlie Rose's lawyer. Some coincidence.

Details on Charlie Rose. This is really bad.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.3646925

Breaking news:

Charlie Rose has been suspended by both PBS and CBS due to "alleged sexual misconduct" - more to follow.

Definition of witch hunt:

formal:

a search for and subsequent persecution of a supposed witch.

informal:

a campaign directed against a person or group holding unorthodox or unpopular views.

Big Magilla wrote:
As I've said before, there's a witch hunt going on that will take the innocent with the guilty.

But is it a witch hunt if it takes the guilty? The meaning of the phrase, I thought, was for something that's a massive and complete fabrication. Not a single person accused in the Salem Witch Hunts was an actual witch.

And it goes on....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... 19f14903e9

Eight Women Say Charlie Rose Sexually Harassed Them — With Nudity, Groping And Lewd Calls

Eight women have told The Washington Post that longtime television host Charlie Rose made unwanted sexual advances toward them, including lewd phone calls, walking around naked in their presence, or groping their breasts, buttocks or genital areas.

The women were employees or aspired to work for Rose at the “Charlie Rose” show from the late 1990s to as recently as 2011. They ranged in age from 21 to 37 at the time of the alleged encounters. Rose, 75, whose show airs on PBS, also co-hosts “CBS This Morning” and is a contributing correspondent for “60 Minutes.”

There are striking commonalities in the accounts of the women, each of whom described their interactions with Rose in multiple interviews with The Post.

ETA: He's gone.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ms-1060477

Big Magilla wrote:
As I've said before, there's a witch hunt going on that will take the innocent with the guilty.

Exactly.

Which is a pity, of course - sexual harassment IS a serious theme, and should be exposed and condemned (condemned by a judge in a trial, hopefully, rather than by hysterical newspapers and websites, but still condemned). But when you read some of these tales, you realize that it could quickly become a farce. Because if EVERYTHING is sexual harassment - including a bad joke, or a glance in a badly-taken photo - then NOTHING is sexual harassment: the result is avoiding or belittling the problem, rather than solving it. This was my warning, days ago - but while some perfectly understood what I meant, the sexophobes here chose to attack me; in their fanatic puritanism, they hated me because, I think, deep inside, they felt I was depriving them of a secret, long-repressed, satisfaction. It's The Scarlet Letter all over again - that American masterpiece is still so relevant today, so subtle in its portrayal of hypocrisy and repression.

I have been patient - I knew and still know that I was right. I have never liked public burnings at the stake - they are too easy a solution. What's happening now (I mean, have you read that woman's story from 2010?!) is a sign that a dangerous climate is developing, and I don't like it. Oh, this Democratic politician may turn out to be a monster in the future, I have no idea - but what I see now, as Big Magilla says, is closer to witch hunting than to a balanced analysis. And things could get worse - not for him maybe, but for others.

The sexophobes here didn't have their own stories (they are so distant from real life - how could they?) so, interestingly, they used other members' true and painful stories (mostly of abuse they suffered when they were children) against me - as if I was justifying their molesters. Absurd - but this is, sadly the way it works. THOSE were - I am sure - real and terrible stories. But other stories are different. Less honest, sometimes.

We have all been young. We have all made mistakes. We have all made tastleless jokes, or done things which, while absolutely innocent, could be looked at with malice and used against us. This is the dark side of all this. And when this dark side takes over, all the good efforts - of women who are REALLY victims, and have found the strength to speak openly - will be considerably damaged, and become less effective.