Ok, I'm confused. Why isn't young Xavier in a wheelchair? Why isn't Beast blue? Does Logan go back in time before the events of First Class? If so, why is Magneto locked up?
Ok, I'm confused. Why isn't young Xavier in a wheelchair? Why isn't Beast blue? Does Logan go back in time before the events of First Class? If so, why is Magneto locked up?
This takes place years after First Class. My X-History is slim, but I think Charles has alternated between handicap & capable. It's not a stretch to think Magnus was captured at some point after First Class.
Looks like an awesome First Class sequel with major support by the elder versions and an excellent bridge with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. If this is indicative of the film as a whole, I am excited. Fire the previous trailer editors.
I hate hearing this stuff. Tactically, for the plaintiff's attorney, the timing makes sense. Make this public rear the release of his summer blockbuster. It'll help rush a settlement to keep this from hindering the movie's success. Truthfully, true or false, it's really just about the money.
I hate hearing this stuff. Tactically, for the plaintiff's attorney, the timing makes sense. Make this public rear the release of his summer blockbuster. It'll help rush a settlement to keep this from hindering the movie's success. Truthfully, true or false, it's really just about the money.
M
Timing is obvious, but if true it's about much more then money
I hate hearing this stuff. Tactically, for the plaintiff's attorney, the timing makes sense. Make this public rear the release of his summer blockbuster. It'll help rush a settlement to keep this from hindering the movie's success. Truthfully, true or false, it's really just about the money.
M
lt reportedly occurred in 1999. Nothing filed in over a decade? I question that. I question why it's been made public. Nearly all of these suits end in a settlement or are dismissed. Too many variables.
It's not the first time he's been accused of something similar, and there's been gossip about him in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be true, but nor would I be surprised to hear it's just extortion.
But if I boycotted every creative work based on something unsavory or illegal on the part of the creator, I'd be boycotting a lot of stuff.
But if I boycotted every creative work based on something unsavory or illegal on the part of the creator, I'd be boycotting a lot of stuff.
I've knowingly supported works where the creators were known for partaking in something illegal or unsavory. For me there is a line in which I have to consider if I'm willing to support that work or not. The rape of children crosses that line(by a long shot) and I'd rather hold on to my money until I know more of the facts.
But if I boycotted every creative work based on something unsavory or illegal on the part of the creator, I'd be boycotting a lot of stuff.
I've knowingly supported works where the creators were known for partaking in something illegal or unsavory. For me there is a line in which I have to consider if I'm willing to support that work or not. The rape of children crosses that line(by a long shot) and I'd rather hold on to my money until I know more of the facts.
I agree. I mean, if you find out your favorite musician uses drugs, I kinda feel like "meh. Who cares? Hopefully he stops before it hurts his health." Or if I were to find out that say... The Rock uses steroids, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Or if I found out my favorite politician (ick, who likes those) illegally downloaded music I'd say "meh, who cares. We all do that."
But this? This is horrible. I've been looking forward to a Days of Future Past movie since I saw the cartoon version in the 90s. I'm gonna have to really think about this. Which sucks because we likely won't know anything anytime soon, and may never know anything for sure.
Fox News has been on all day in my office, I'm surprised they didn't say one single word about it since... this is a Fox produced movie.
This is like sexual harassment, whether you're guilty or not, you're guilty. Until I hear more victims come forward or clear cut evidence, I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt.
Just like with insurance companies, he'll wind up paying whether he's guilty or not just to move past this.
If he's guilty, then I rank him up there with Paterno & Sandusky. I'm always reluctant when someone comes forward so many years later, out of the blue, & files suits like these. I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive (not circumstancal) evidence is revealed. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If I waiver from that, then why the hell would I want to work within the field of law enforcement?
This is like sexual harassment, whether you're guilty or not, you're guilty. Until I hear more victims come forward or clear cut evidence, I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt.
Just like with insurance companies, he'll wind up paying whether he's guilty or not just to move past this.
If he's guilty, then I rank him up there with Paterno & Sandusky. I'm always reluctant when someone comes forward so many years later, out of the blue, & files suits like these. I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive (not circumstancal) evidence is revealed. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If I waiver from that, then why the hell would I want to work within the field of law enforcement?
M
I should point out that I want Singer to be afforded every right he is due as an American citizen and should be considered innocent until proven guilty by law enforcement and the courts. As a consumer, however, I'm not obligated to do that. For me I consider holding my support back until I know more of what really happened to be wise. I can always support this movie by buying the disc but it'd be impossible to take my money back.
This is like sexual harassment, whether you're guilty or not, you're guilty. Until I hear more victims come forward or clear cut evidence, I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt.
Just like with insurance companies, he'll wind up paying whether he's guilty or not just to move past this.
If he's guilty, then I rank him up there with Paterno & Sandusky. I'm always reluctant when someone comes forward so many years later, out of the blue, & files suits like these. I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive (not circumstancal) evidence is revealed. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If I waiver from that, then why the hell would I want to work within the field of law enforcement?
But if I boycotted every creative work based on something unsavory or illegal on the part of the creator, I'd be boycotting a lot of stuff.
I've knowingly supported works where the creators were known for partaking in something illegal or unsavory. For me there is a line in which I have to consider if I'm willing to support that work or not. The rape of children crosses that line(by a long shot) and I'd rather hold on to my money until I know more of the facts.
There are lines for me, too, and if he's found guilty, at the very least I would want him to pay for the crime and suffer some sort of consequence in his career. Seeing as how Roman Polanski's winning of an Oscar a few years back was viewed as a triumph, though, I'm not sure that would even happen. And as detestable as I found what Polanski did, I still rented and enjoyed The Pianist, and I watch Chinatown again every couple years. And I strongly feel that Polanski should have gone to jail for what he did.
At what point do I punish the art for what the people responsible for it did? When the director does something? An actor? A writer? A set designer?
A lot of rotten people have made some great art. There are love songs by singers who were sexually abusive misogynists, poetry by people who were virulent racists, books written by wife murderers (that would be Sinatra, Eliot, and Burroughs, if anyone's wondering who I'm thinking of), but I guess for me, as long as the art doesn't proselytize those horrible views, I can accept it on its own terms.
This is like sexual harassment, whether you're guilty or not, you're guilty. Until I hear more victims come forward or clear cut evidence, I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt.
Just like with insurance companies, he'll wind up paying whether he's guilty or not just to move past this.
If he's guilty, then I rank him up there with Paterno & Sandusky. I'm always reluctant when someone comes forward so many years later, out of the blue, & files suits like these. I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive (not circumstancal) evidence is revealed. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If I waiver from that, then why the hell would I want to work within the field of law enforcement?
M
I should point out that I want Singer to be afforded every right he is due as an American citizen and should be considered innocent until proven guilty by law enforcement and the courts. As a consumer, however, I'm not obligated to do that. For me I consider holding my support back until I know more of what really happened to be wise. I can always support this movie by buying the disc but it'd be impossible to take my money back.
I understand that...which is why I'm not going to boycott his work at this point. Its how the bullshitters win. People, guilty or innocent, worry about the outcome in the public point. It feeds my 'entitlement' theory. People feel 'entitled' as customers/patrons & even when wrong, will make a stink about things. Companies cave, eat losses, & wrongly apologize to save a sale & prevent bad word of mouth.
Bullshitters are counting on someone caving because of the court of public opinion. They'll get something.
I refuse to feed into what bullshitters & they're scumbag lawyers try to do.*. I see too many times (through work) where people file bullshit claims & get free money.
M
* not saying Singer is guilty or innocent, but talking in general terms.
I refuse to feed into what bullshitters & they're scumbag lawyers try to do.*. I see too many times (through work) where people file bullshit claims & get free money.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
Why should some allegation effect my enjoyment of a movie? Why have some anonymous accuser ruin what looks to me to be a great film? I wish we could stick to the subject matter and not the ephemera around it.
So is Singer the most successful out of that group? Where was his parents? They moved to LA with him? Not sure what the 'gaydar' was in reference to. So that elite school was a front for this group? Should they be brought into the suit? The accusations fell on deaf ears? Was Singer 'Singer' at that time? He wasn't concerned about 'deaf ears' now? What other kids were there? How long was he there for? Any communication with his parents during that time? Did he remain with that elite school that lead to this incident? Is the police agency his mom reported it to involved in the suit? Describe what Singer's unit looks like. What about the other people there.
These are a fraction of the questions I'd be asking if I was investigating this.
Truthfully, have more questions then answers to satisfy a notion that Singer is any more guilty then before. This guy could just be lashing out because his acting career went nowhere...which led to the drinking.
As mentioned above; I'm at this movie opening weekend.
Comments
M
M
Bryan Singer has some legal problems
M
M
But if I boycotted every creative work based on something unsavory or illegal on the part of the creator, I'd be boycotting a lot of stuff.
I've knowingly supported works where the creators were known for partaking in something illegal or unsavory. For me there is a line in which I have to consider if I'm willing to support that work or not. The rape of children crosses that line(by a long shot) and I'd rather hold on to my money until I know more of the facts.
But this? This is horrible. I've been looking forward to a Days of Future Past movie since I saw the cartoon version in the 90s. I'm gonna have to really think about this. Which sucks because we likely won't know anything anytime soon, and may never know anything for sure.
Fox News has been on all day in my office, I'm surprised they didn't say one single word about it since... this is a Fox produced movie.
Just like with insurance companies, he'll wind up paying whether he's guilty or not just to move past this.
If he's guilty, then I rank him up there with Paterno & Sandusky. I'm always reluctant when someone comes forward so many years later, out of the blue, & files suits like these. I've got to give Singer the benefit of the doubt until more conclusive (not circumstancal) evidence is revealed. I do believe people are innocent until proven guilty. If I waiver from that, then why the hell would I want to work within the field of law enforcement?
M
At what point do I punish the art for what the people responsible for it did? When the director does something? An actor? A writer? A set designer?
A lot of rotten people have made some great art. There are love songs by singers who were sexually abusive misogynists, poetry by people who were virulent racists, books written by wife murderers (that would be Sinatra, Eliot, and Burroughs, if anyone's wondering who I'm thinking of), but I guess for me, as long as the art doesn't proselytize those horrible views, I can accept it on its own terms.
Bullshitters are counting on someone caving because of the court of public opinion. They'll get something.
I refuse to feed into what bullshitters & they're scumbag lawyers try to do.*. I see too many times (through work) where people file bullshit claims & get free money.
M
* not saying Singer is guilty or innocent, but talking in general terms.
- Bill Shakespeare
These are a fraction of the questions I'd be asking if I was investigating this.
Truthfully, have more questions then answers to satisfy a notion that Singer is any more guilty then before. This guy could just be lashing out because his acting career went nowhere...which led to the drinking.
As mentioned above; I'm at this movie opening weekend.
M