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.

Well, a just person would. So I do care. As should anyone else who cares about the justice system and public lynchings. The only bullshit is being spewed by people who, two decades later, want to find fault with a man who is innocent. If he had been proven guilty or if there was some other like-minded crimes to help corroborate suspicion, then I can understand. Other then that, it was an accusation that was proven guilty in court. There is no 'insulting of intelligence' there is only picking sides based on whatever arbitrary reasoning you adhere to. I side with the court system. Everything else is subjective emotion-rousing. 'He was accused...therefore he must have done it'. Why are people ITT mad about his interview? He didn't commit a crime, nor was he proven guilty of any wrong doing. What else was he supposed to say?

That is not fair at all. The man wasn't proven guilty. You're coming across as simply vindictive. This same sort of thing happens to college guys and athletes all over the country every year. There are more than enough of them that get busted during the investigation and trial process and serve time than to just suppose that because he was an athlete he got off. Guys are rightfully getting busted all the time. It's happening in Baylor. It's happening in Vanderbilt and elsewhere. If Nate Parker didn't get proven guilty, then the chances are that he didn't commit the crime. The courts have deemed him not guilty and he should be perceived as such. And it was twenty years ago. Not yesterday. If he had been found guilty and served his time he still shouldn't or couldn't be punished further in any way, but at least then he'd be justifiably loathed. I hope his movie performs on its own merit financially and if its Oscar worthy I hope its at least nominated.

A sexy superstar.

I stopped watching these guys reviews. They spend a lot time saying absolutely nothing. I don't know how they are even seen as film reviewers.

There is no way this thing doesn't somehow open in the summer. I just can't see it being anywhere else.

I fail to see why this movie is being made..or why it's being made is even an issue...or if it's even an issue anywhere that isn't this forum. Regardless, if my lady love Helena Bonham Carter, is dolled up in any capacity..I'll be tempted to want to see this.If she's anywhere as put together in this as she was in Dark Shadows...I'll pay to watch this, both unapologetically, unironically and unsarcastically. She was the only reason I have ever envied Tim Burton.

You're simplifying the film itself as though it didn't have a lot of topics that could be talked about. For a movie all about sex, rape, racism, homophobia, atheism etc, saying 'it was funny' is not enough. Saying 'It was funny' is not a movie review.

But there are black or 'dark' skinned Indians. Mindy is one of them. There are millions upon millions of other dark skinned Indians. They are 'black' for all intents and purposes.

Deadpool was an okay movie itself. My statement was in relation to parents who thought to take their kids to Deadpool in spite of it's R rating.

Arab isn't a skin color. There are Arabs with skin as black as coal, there are Arabs with blue eyes.