Predator | 14th September, 2018 | Shane Black to Co-Write and Direct

[Barnack]

4 minutes ago, TombRaider said:

siding with** rapists, pedophiles... as long as they're straight men aswell and the target is a woman

Which rapist and which pedophiles ?

 

The person in this current case was not accused of either:

Pedophilia (alternatively spelled paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12, criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13. A person who is diagnosed with pedophilia must be at least 16 years old, and at least five years older than the prepubescent child, for the attraction to be diagnosed as pedophilia.

[baumer]

8 minutes ago, Firepower said:

What are you talking about? The guy served his sentence years and years ago, he was convicted for internet chat, not sexual/physical assault, he didn't do it again since then. Maybe you think that guy should've killed himself instead of trying to make it right and become a better person? I don't support sexual predators and I want to ask you: do you realize that predators do it many times for many years and this is not Spacey/Singer situation at all? Shane chose to help his friend, there's nothing wrong with it. He didn't hide anything, it's a public information anyone could check. If you really think it's right to give up on your friend as soon as he did something wrong, like those mob groups think, then you're very ugly human being and not better than people you condemn. Or you really think that you're a saint and didn't do anything bad in your life? if so, then I have very bad news for you. Shane and cast don't deserve shit they're getting right now, they did nothing wrong.

 

You don't have to give up on your friend, but his friend made his bed.  Now you lie in it.  Munn isn't comfortable with a child predator on set.  And you have a problem with this?  If this guy was teaching your kids in school, would you be okay with it?  Serious question.

[Barnack]

1 minute ago, Dr Loomis baumer said:

 

No you're missing the point.  Her point is that they were not told of his crime.  And if she was told about it she would not have wanted him on the set in the first place.  

Not the impression she gave on that interview:

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/olivia-munn-says-fox-didnt-return-her-call-initially-after-reporting-predator-sex-offender-exclusive-interview-1202933315/

 

“The reason why it’s so important, especially in Hollywood, is because movies are so far reaching. And this kind of movie, it’s an international movie, it’s going to go global, or that’s our hope, and more people see that,” Munn said.

She added: “When you have somebody on a big screen, no matter how small – we’ve all done little parts in movies – that little grain of fame is just enough to reach out and influence somebody who is impressionable and if you have somebody that has a history of using that to abuse children, that’s not OK in my book. And I do believe people deserve second chances, but I do have a hard line when it comes to people who hurt children or animals. You deserve to go make money, but not alongside me in a film. You can go work in a lot of other places or like make an Etsy store or something.”

 

I am not 100% sure, but it did seem the fact the guy was an actor and not a cameraman or someone working in the accounting/marketing department at Fox was a factor for her.

 

Maybe you are right, maybe she would have like a background check for 100% of the people involved and asked to anyone with any sexual history with a minors to be fired, but maybe not.

[Barnack]

2 minutes ago, Dr Loomis baumer said:

If this guy was teaching your kids in school, would you be okay with it?  Serious question.

There is an obvious difference if the person is working with kids (those employer can legally look at the people background before employing them), even more so if they have a position of authority with the kids like your example.

 

If being on a 100% adult set doing scene with an adult like in this case is unacceptable, what work place would be acceptable ?

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Firepower]

9 minutes ago, Dr Loomis baumer said:

 You don't have to give up on your friend, but his friend made his bed.  Now you lie in it.  Munn isn't comfortable with a child predator on set.  And you have a problem with this?  If this guy was teaching your kids in school, would you be okay with it?  Serious question.

I wouldn't be okay with it, but you're missing the point: he wasn't around kids on set and looks like Munn and everyone else didn't have a problem with his behaviour on set, so what's wrong? Should he prohibited from working on any set with only adults if they're okay with him? Then what's the difference between it and any other job? And since then one case of internet chat and no physical contact = predator? Was he caught on doing it again or before that case? If he was doing it multiple times, then he's a predator, but if it was only one time and he didn't do it again, then this is not a predator case.

Edited September 9, 2018 by Firepower

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Valonqar]

Ok, Barnak's posted a quote that explains really well what she meant. The guy used his acting cred to lure those girls into Internet chats that he was sentenced for. So Munn thinks that he shouldn't be given more acting cred to potentially lure girls with if he ever is to repeat his offense. She even says he could get any other job but shouldn't be given one that he once used for predatory activity. Makes sense. 

Edited September 9, 2018 by Valonqar

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

The guy used his acting cred to lure those girls into Internet chats that he was sentenced for. So Munn thinks that he shouldn't be given more acting cred to potentially lure girls with if he ever is to repeat his offense. She even says he could get any other job but shouldn't be given one that he once used for predatory activity. Makes sense.

Not that we know off, what he was accused for what electronic and phone correspondence with a family relative he knew in real life, that could have happened without being an actor.

 

But yeah Munn large point is that giving a public high profile jobs could help aggressor achieve to be repeat offender without getting arrested more easily, at least that how I understand it. Not that him in particular was necessarily doing it (that we know of)

[Valonqar]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Not that we know off, what he was accused for what electronic and phone correspondence with a family relative he knew in real life, that could have happened without being an actor.

 

But yeah Munn large point is that giving a public high profile jobs could help aggressor achieve to be repeat offender without getting arrested more easily, at least that how I understand it. Not that him in particular was necessarily doing it (that we know of)

This quote " if you have somebody that has a history of using that to abuse children" strike me as allusion to that he used his acting cred but maybe I misinterpreted. In any case, she isn't advocating for lynching or banning him from any other job. 

 

 

[dxmatrixdt]

1 hour ago, dX airdry zid said:

[DMan7]

Like I've said you're setting a dangerous precedent if someone like this actor can't be allowed to work on a movie set based on a crime which he has served sentence for in the past. Where with it all end? What if there are actors/actresses on movie sets that don't want to work alongside people who were convicted thieves, convicted drug abusers, convicted domestic abusers? This is just one actress who don't want to work alongside another actor who have been convicted of being a sexual predator in the past and there can be many more actors / actresses in the future who have different dislikes for people with different past offenses. Should those people all be banned as well? Will there ever be anyone working on movie sets anymore? Because I'm sure there are lots of people working on movie sets with lots of past offenses that some other co-star won't be comfortable with. 

 

If the guy can't be forgiven as no one will want to work alongside him based on his offense in the past which he served time for then he might as well be locked up in prison indefinitely as he won't be able to ever find work anywhere. 

[AndyK]

Anyways............

 

64% on RT with 22 reviews, not too shabby.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Slave Animal Rights

[The Futurist]

The New Puritans make me fucking laugh, &  barf.

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited September 9, 2018 by dX airdry zid

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited September 9, 2018 by dX airdry zid

[dxmatrixdt]

.

Edited September 9, 2018 by dX airdry zid