comicbookguy

There is no difference. Amber Heard is A, B and C she did X, Y and Z - don't watch her movies, I hope she gets removed from the film for those external reasons not related to the quality of the film she stars in. Nat Parker is A, B and C, he did X, Y and Z - dont watch his movies, I hope it fails for those external reasons not related to the quality of the film he's attached to. Both are literally the exact same degree of poisoning the well from a logical position. And why was my quote deleted? And MORE importantly, how was anything I said being interpreted as poisoning the well. Again, you guys use this to mean whatever you want it to mean, and not what it actually means.

Is this how he's chosen to placate the public due to the lack of a trailer? To remind them that the movie experience is that much richer when you haven't seen a trailer for it? This is joke right? Some type of avant garde reverse psychology mumbo jumbo? Would he be saying this silliness if the trailer for the film was out? "Don't watch the trailer for Passengers' the movie experience will be richer for it." That has to be his go to for now on going forward in his career. "Dont watch the trailer for my one hundred million dollar movie that I spent months writing and redrafting tirelessly and that the production studio has spent millons of dollars strategically marketing, this movie is something special if you don't know anything about it going on in."

There are more than enough posts in this thread, since this scandal surfaced, that should constitute poisoning the well. They have all went unchecked. And nothing pertaining to issues outside of any film's production or development can be brought up in a disparaging light and not, technically, be considered not poisoning the well.

Yes, no 'poisoning the well' going on in here. I bring up Amber Heard clearly being a witch to Johnny Depp. A neat little message about trolling shows up. People dog pile on a twenty year old case and a legally innocent man, that they all suddenly know about and it's not poisoning the well. Well played. This whole thing is a horrible mess. But, it's hilarious and pathetic at the same time to see people talking about whether or not the man has 'changed'...nearly twenty years later..despite nothing of this same sort showing up again and him having built a career while having a sizeable family. More proof that this is has just turned into some virtue and indignation fest.

The irony of such a statement coming out that weasel's mouth.

This movie is a surprise and might save an otherwise boring year in movies (outside of the comicbook films of course).

Yes, because letting the defamation on your part (and everyone else echoing it) run rampant is the better option. I've been accused of poisoning the well in other threads where I called out for the Amber and Johnny issue, but you people are quite literally 'poisoning the well.' @Tele the Jet Baller

So, 'no comment' would have been a better response to you?

Yes, likewise. I have the feeling you don't have any objectivity in your system whatsoever. Vague outrage is the worst type, it summons the unsubstantiated assumptions of others of the same ilk. Why? Because I hold a legal opinion and don't get swept up in internet outrage?

Yes, be outraged and harass me about a public opinion supported by the justice system.

And what should he have said?

I meant Michael Holt. Mr. Terrific. Look, if Parker actually committed a rape, then of course I'd have nothing to do with him and he deserves to serve prison time for it. But just because the case is resurfacing now doesn't suddenly mean he's retroactively guilty of anything.

I couldn't care one less lick about this movie. Nate Parker is my choice for a Blue Marvel or a Mr Fantastic flick. I hope something that he didn't do doesn't bring him down all these years later.

Speaking strictly from a legal standpoint, he's not supposed to confirm or deny anything except for the legal outcome of the case. Obviously he denied any wrongdoing during those court proceedings. But the reality is, we got a blurp, an excerpt from a two hour interview. We don't know what all was said during it. And? Maybe he didn't know what was going to be talked about, or maybe he did. We don't know. In either case, he's innocent and it was nearly twenty years ago. The first one is perfect and advisable legal conduct. The second one doesn't mean anything. Neither of those are 'shit' things to do. Whats not worth it? It's a simple discussion. He's not guilty of anything. The people who are out of line are those wanting him to burn for something he insists he didn't do and a court of law found that to be the case.

He's not guilty simply because you or anyone else wants him to be. Nor is he guilty simply because he was accused. The court system, twenty years ago, found him him not guilty and he's insisted on his innocence.