|
Alan Smithee posted:what's the main takeaway for those who haven't watched Neverland If you had any doubts about Michael Jackson before watching it, you won't after watching it.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 06:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:what's the main takeaway for those who haven't watched Neverland Michael Jackson 100% sexually assaulted children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 09:27
|
|
|
Not just that he assaulted children, that he basically transformed his house and his body and his personality to be more palatable to children as some kind of weird party clown and that his entire staff of servants and helpers were all complicit. You also come away thinking “wow those parents really just served their kids up to a pedofile for cash”
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 09:48
|
|
|
Wrong thread!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 10:28
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:If you had any doubts about Michael Jackson before watching it, you won't after watching it. Alan, Google “Michael Jackson fax” and you’ll have a taste of why people are like “he did it”
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 11:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1366086945949036545?s=20 the guy who checked his daughter's hymen btw
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 11:04
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1366086945949036545?s=20 Every sexmonster seems to have a deep, deep problem with projection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 15:11
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1366086945949036545?s=20 Woof. I have an old friend who, according to her insta, randomly got involved with these two....I hope she’s okay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 16:59
|
|
|
2 down, 1 to go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 20:00
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Alan, Google “Michael Jackson fax” and you’ll have a taste of why people are like “he did it” The faxes are so drat creepy and incriminating. Then again so is just about everything in the movie. I mean the man had multiple bedrooms within bedrooms and closets within closets. And a movie theater with a private room in the back with a bed. He harmed the kids in such a way that he could never be caught in the act, knowing as long as he didn't nothing would ever stick to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
What did Pharrell do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:What did Pharrell do? In theory, nothing (that I'm aware of). But participating in that song, and video, is really loving weird and creepy. So I guess people just assume. thrawn527 fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Mar 1, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:2 down, 1 to go. Who made this, Emily Ratajkowski?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 22:23
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:What did Pharrell do? Nothing that we know of, but it occurred to me this morning while I was in the shower that 2 of the 3 participants in that song have either had their careers significantly derailed, or are in the process of having it derailed, and that would make Pharrell the last one standing, so far. Also, gently caress that song, loving rape anthem poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:what's the main takeaway for those who haven't watched Neverland
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 00:06
|
|
|
davidbix posted:Something that I don't believe was included: I can't find the article right now, but when the documentary premiered on HBO, there was a piece somewhere that, in part, examined how prevalent photos of Michael Jackson and James Safechuck together were in teenybopper magazines. It adds a bunch more frustrating layers to the proceedings. Basically everyone in the music industry was a perpetrator or a victim of child sex trafficking, and often both. There's a very old saying "the music industry was invented to make the movie industry look good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2021 06:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1366885465526132737?s=20
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
Ahahahaha i hope he (figuratively speaking) gets hosed up the rear end. Honestly surprised the feds haven't gone after him, it'd be relatively high profile and it wouldn't be politicized much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Mr. D’Elia expressed that Ms. Doe’s age, innocence, and virginity made the encounter ‘hot,’” the attorneys said in their statement... Their communication continued until May 2015, the lawsuit says. Doe turned 18 on Jan. 31, 2015. Jesus loving christ. If he's the one who stopped communication, that does not look good.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
I've been watching Allen v Farrow but this article popped up in The Guardian today which is fairly defensive of Allen but does make points that the series is omitting a lot of details that would make Mia come off as a lot worse than she does and makes the whole situation about Dylan more ambiguous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
Cacator posted:I've been watching Allen v Farrow but this article popped up in The Guardian today which is fairly defensive of Allen but does make points that the series is omitting a lot of details that would make Mia come off as a lot worse than she does and makes the whole situation about Dylan more ambiguous. Nope nope nope, however terrible a mom Mia Farrow was, you either think Woody Allen was sexually abusive to Dylan Farrow or you think Dylan Farrow was lying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:21
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Nope nope nope, however terrible a mom Mia Farrow was, you either think Woody Allen was sexually abusive to Dylan Farrow or you think Dylan Farrow was lying. I don't doubt Dylan's claims at all, but I think the series could do a better job at displaying the complexities and contradictions in the case instead of glossing over them completely.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
It's clearly one of those documentaries that's very set on its version of the events. And that's not to say the narrative is false or that the filmmakers didn't do their due diligence. Maybe it's the price they have to pay for that kind of access to interview subjects. It'll probably be the documentary or book after this that'll tell the story in all its complexity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:18
|
|
|
The fact is that every documentary has a view point or bias of some kind, because the person making the documentary has a view point or bias. It's what drove them to make the documentary in the first place. They're trying to get that view point out to the public.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah there's this common error that documentaries are looks at the oBjEcTiVe FaCtS and not argumentative pieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
I feel like Finding Neverland handled it a lot better though. They went into way more depth on why the victims continued to support Jackson for years for example. With Allen v Farrow the title is misleading because they seem comfortable with letting Mia drive the narrative, not Dylan.Vegetable posted:Maybe it's the price they have to pay for that kind of access to interview subjects. It'll probably be the documentary or book after this that'll tell the story in all its complexity. Edit: This Atlantic article explains the issues with the show much better than the last article I posted Cacator fucked around with this message at 22:37 on Mar 3, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Here's the thing I just can't shake, though: Every defense of Allen/repudiation of the allegations/documentary that I've seen always ignores or glosses over the "inappropriate intensity" on Allen's part towards Dylan that, in a 2021 context, is very obviously grooming behavior. (Something with plenty of witnesses to it, as well.) Tell me why, besides one shrink saying it wasn't sexual, that shouldn't be heavily weighed? That Atlantic article is by far the best of the pieces that point out what else should have been included. I think the central thesis (Dylan was/is clearly telling the truth but the doc should handle the other side the way Leaving Neverland did) is 100% fair.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 00:16
|
|
|
The doc definitely tries to canonize Mia, I think there’s one moment where she admits to slapping Soon-Yi across the face in the days after finding her Polaroids at Woody’s place and then catching her on the phone with him, but aside from that you’re supposed to assume that Mia was Mother of the Decade, presumably because defenders of Woody Allen will say that Mia is just manipulating her daughter to get back at Woody. The accusations on his side are more about Mia than Dylan, who is relegated to a tool with no autonomy of her own. I think the case the doc builds against Allen is really sound and they are able to use his own words against him, but I worry that people are gonna attack the credibility of the doc as a whole by saying “clearly Mia was flawed as a mother”, when in reality it’s probably true that Mia wasn’t quite as perfect as the doc makes her out to be and Woody’s a creep who abused his own daughter and cheated on this partner with her 17 year old daughter
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 01:38
|
|
|
Yeah, that's my whole thing, it doesn't matter how good or bad Mia Farrow was as a mother, she's not the one that sexually abused a child under her care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Besides, it's a loving stupid argument. Mia Farrow didn't force Woody Allen to be a molesty, grooming creep towards children. Get to gently caress with that poo poo, mate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
Let me be clear, I'm in no way blaming Mia for Woody's actions or suggesting she's lying about Dylan, but if the intent of the filmmakers is to convince people unequivocally that Woody Allen is a child molester then they are doing themselves a disservice by not doing more to address and refute the counter arguments from Allen's side. Not mentioning some details at all just opens the documentary up to more doubt and criticism, especially as that Atlantic article notes that much of those arguments are already out there and known to the public. Again, Finding Neverland had the right approach with a clear focus on empathy for Jackson's victims, but with Allen v Farrow I don't get the sense this is about putting you in Dylan's shoes as much as it is about making Allen the villain. And it's not like he has anywhere near the level of support that MJ did. Cacator fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
its very hosed up that woody allen hosed soon-yi when she was a teen and he was in a relationship with mia farrow lmao. like what the gently caress this mans is hosed up
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Let me be clear, I'm in no way blaming Mia for Woody's actions or suggesting she's lying about Dylan, but if the intent of the filmmakers is to convince people unequivocally that Woody Allen is a child molester then they are doing themselves a disservice by not doing more to address and refute the counter arguments from Allen's side. Not mentioning some details at all just opens the documentary up to more doubt and criticism, especially as that Atlantic article notes that much of those arguments are already out there and known to the public. Either people believe Woody Allen is a monster or they don't, a documentary being too nice to Mia Farrow isn't going make people less likely to believe the accusations against him. The Atlantic is loving trash and has been for my entire adult life. It's basically the Daily Mail if the Daily Mail was fine with abortion and gay marriage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:38
|
|
|
It's come out that the Attorney General of Australia, christian porter, assaulted a woman in 1988, but she killed herself recently so it's his word against a dead person It's come out because there was a watershed of accusations against government staff after someone filed a police report about a cabinet aide assaulting her https://www.9news.com.au/national/c...ec-d32bc2077e52 The Peccadillo fucked around with this message at 05:13 on Mar 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 04:54
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Either people believe Woody Allen is a monster or they don't, a documentary being too nice to Mia Farrow isn't going make people less likely to believe the accusations against him. Well, I don't think that's actually true. It's not hard to see why people would be skeptical of the official Farrow documentary when it removes anything questionable about her. If what you say is true then *including* that stuff wouldn't change the fact that Allen did what he did either, but it would at least give the impression that the documentary was level-headed. Otherwise what's the purpose of the documentary, to tell people who already knew that Allen was guilty that Allen was guilty? Even if people want to say it's just a documentary, they're all biased etc then yeah ok, but don't position yourself as the definitive document on the case then. It's clearly attempting to be journalistic (with a whole lot of weak pop-psychology thrown in) but you can't take that approach and then pull anything that might, to some viewers, muddy the waters.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 08:01
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Let me be clear, I'm in no way blaming Mia for Woody's actions or suggesting she's lying about Dylan, but if the intent of the filmmakers is to convince people unequivocally that Woody Allen is a child molester then they are doing themselves a disservice by not doing more to address and refute the counter arguments from Allen's side. Not mentioning some details at all just opens the documentary up to more doubt and criticism, especially as that Atlantic article notes that much of those arguments are already out there and known to the public. Finding Neverland didn't cover Jackson's defense or counter evidence at all - so it was just guilty of something else. This one so far is just pretty non empathetic and I'm not learning much that I can't just read elsewhere. I'm not a fan of docs like this in general, except for exposing things that you may not have heard before (I know I personally hedged more on alleged victims' side than before after Finding Neverland, but only for exposing things that weren't seen in the court cases back then). I mean, Allen was pretty much dead in the water to me after being with someone he groomed; someone's actions before/after accusations are pretty damning as to the accusations for me and the main thing I look at.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
That’s kind of my position: I literally do not understand why his absolutely disgusting and completely insane relationship with Soon Yi isn’t grounds enough for total and complete cancellation//being shot into the sun. It’s kind of why the Woody Allen thing almost feels immediately exhausting. With Jacko, there was a level denial around each accusation that felt like his legal team was trying some form of arcane defense. In Allen’s case he’s just like “yeah I was 50 and my girlfriend’s daughter was super cute and now I’m married to my girlfriend’s daughter and legally adopted her brother and sister and all of that is a very clean and simple matter of public record” and STILL he got away with it. I’m not saying I don’t believe Farrow at all, I 100% believe her! I’m just saying I literally don’t understand why this movie needs to happen because as far as I’m concerned Woody Allen has already copped to grooming and molesting a child and and absolutely everyone just let him get away with it the first time. It makes me feel completely insane, like I’m explaining it wrong. I do not understand how he ever survived that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:23
|
|
|
imagine libs defending Cuomo except him actually being a "cOnTrIbUtOr tO tHe aRtS"
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 14:38
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:That’s kind of my position: I literally do not understand why his absolutely disgusting and completely insane relationship with Soon Yi isn’t grounds enough for total and complete cancellation//being shot into the sun. Yeah I said it earlier in the thread but it blew my mind the Soon-Yi thing alone didn't gently caress him up back when it happened. Even if you don't believe Mia or Dylan about any of the actually illegal truly monstrous stuff marrying your partner's adopted daughter is hosed up enough on its own.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 15:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 19:14 |
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:
The vast majority of people are not aware of the extent and seriousness of Dylan's accusations and the evidence backing it up. The doc is to tell her story.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2021 15:28
|
|
