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

[aabattery]

My two cents is that the victims of sex offenders don't have the choice to forget what happened, so I don't see why the sex offenders themselves should get to have their crimes forgiven and forgotten. I'm not saying they should be totally shunned by society, but people should have a choice as to whether or not they work with them. 

 

Munn is totally within her right to take a stand here, and it seems like a big violation of trust by Shane Black to put her in that situation in the first place. 

[Crainy]

Yeah, I also think that this could affect the box office.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Crainy

[robertman2]

Supporting the rights of sex offenders is one of the stupidest fucking things I've heard in a while

[Valonqar]

This is dragged into public to overshadow Asia Argento scandal isn't it? One cannot fail to notice that media want Asia thing to just go away even though it's much more serious than this controversy. She embarrassed the movement that made her their face including by playing the "blame the victim" card something that the movement totally opposes. Media clearly doesn't like this narrative so they need distraction and now are blowing Predator out of proportion so we forget that #MeToo made a mistake. They are human, they are not perfect and nothing wrong with that. let them learn from a mistake but trying to sweep it under the rug by putting the spotlight on something far less urgent will not help anyone. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Valonqar

[Nova]

2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

This is dragged into public to overshadow Asia Argento scandal isn't it? One cannot fail to notice that media want Asia thing to just go away even though it's much more serious than this controversy. She embarrassed the movement that made her their face including by playing the "blame the victim" card something that the movement totally opposes. Media clearly doesn't like this narrative so they need distraction and now are blowing Predator out of proportion so we forget that #MeToo made a mistake. They are human, they are not perfect and nothing wrong with that. let them learn from a mistake but trying to sweep it under the rug by putting the spotlight on something far less urgent will not help anyone. 

What does that have to do with anything? Olivia Munn's problem has nothing to do with #MeToo movement. She was not sexually assaulted by this man. She just doesn't want to work with him because of what he has done in the past, which is her right. Had Shane Black made her aware of this man's past and then she was okay with still working on the project, it would be completely different. But she wasn't made aware and therefore did not have the choice of whether she wanted to work with him or not. That's what all of this is about. She doesn't believe in forgiving or giving someone second chances for sexual assault. Just like some of folks are okay with it (Shane Black) there are those who aren't okay with it and Olivia Munn is one of them. 

 

I don't say this just for Olivia Munn, but people should have the right to know what type of people they are working with. As someone who is heading into the medical profession, I damn well want to know if someone I am working with was convicted of sexual assault or luring a 14 year old to have sex with them. I know there are laws in certain states that prevent this information from being put out there to employers and thus it is info that may not be available but the point being is that, it shouldn't be like this. Employers should know. Fellow employees should know. People should have that choice. 

 

I really don't understand why it's okay for Shane Black to have the choice of casting his friend in the film and working with him, but people who don't want to work with registered sex offenders, don't get that choice. 

[EarlyDeadlinePredictions]

1 minute ago, Nova said:

I really don't understand why it's okay for Shane Black to have the choice of casting his friend in the film and working with him, but people who don't want to work with registered sex offenders, don't get that choice. 

This

[filmlover]

5 minutes ago, Nova said:

I really don't understand why it's okay for Shane Black to have the choice of casting his friend in the film and working with him, but people who don't want to work with registered sex offenders, don't get that choice. 

Stop talking sense, Nova!

[Crainy]

I do believe She should have the right to not work with a registered sex offender if she doesnt want to. And she does have that right. The question is rather if she has the right to be informed that she is working with a registered sex offender and that really depends on what the law says.

 

Wether or not its the moral thing to do, thats much harder to tell. Lets change the situation a bit: If Steve Wilder was convicted for beating some guy up, served his sentence and was released, would you still say that everyone on the production team has the right to know about this incident 8 years later? If not, wheres the difference? You could maybe argue that beeing a registered sex-offender makes him more dangerous to Munn, but thats an unfounded assumption and surely beeing convicted for assault would make Steve Wilder far more dangerous to her and the entire team than a convinction for trying to manipulate a minor over the internet?

 

If everyone suddenly has the right to know about all crimes anyone has committed right out of the gate, no matter how minor or major, rehabilitation and betterment would be impossible, and in that case you might aswell leave all criminals in prison forever.

Edited July 27, 2020 by Crainy

[Valonqar]

@Nova I didn't even think that Munn has anything to do with it. It seems to me that media happily found something to keep reporting about since they are very cautiously reporting about Argento's shockingly disturbing transgressions. Munn is simply caught between the rock and the hard place, but it;s clear that media want this to be the story. 

[Nova]

11 minutes ago, Crainy said:

I do believe She should have the right to not work with a registered sex offender if she doesnt want to. And she does have that right. The question is rather if she has the right to be informed that she is working with a registered sex offender and that really depends on what the law says.

 

Wether or not its the moral thing to do, thats much harder to tell. Lets change the situation a bit: If Steve Wilder was convicted for beating some guy up, served his sentence and was released, would you still say that everyone on the production team has the right to know about this incident 8 years later? If not, wheres the difference? You could maybe argue that beeing a registered sex-offender makes him more dangerous to Munn, but thats an unfounded assumption and surely beeing convicted for assault would make Steve Wilder far more dangerous to her and the entire team than a convinction for trying to manipulate a minor over the internet?

 

If everyone suddenly has the right to know about all crimes anyone has committed right out of the gate, no matter how minor or major, rehabilitation and betterment would be impossible, and in that case you might aswell leave all criminals in prison forever.

I think people do have the right to know that. And from there each individual can make the decision for themselves of whether they want to work with said person. 

 

In regards to leaving criminals in jail, that doesnt make any sense. No one is saying these people shouldn't have jobs. What we are saying is that people should have the right to know who they are working with and be able to decide whether they want to work with said person. For example, if a person is difficult to work with, typically that gets around. Everyone finds out so and so is hard to work with. And from there people make the choice of whether they want to work with said person or if they want to avoid the headache and thus not be involved. 

 

Why should it be any different for criminals? If someone has been convicted of beating the shit out of someone, yes I want to know about it. From there I will make my OWN decision of whether I want to work with said person as opposed to someone making the decision for me. Note I am not saying I would not work with said person. I am saying I want to have that choice. 

[TombRaider]

straight men showing their ass here and deciding to attack the woman and siding with the perv

 

[SLAM!]

I'm neutral on the situation. I believe in a balance between forgiveness and justice; we should be more open to forgiving minor offenses after a long time in certain conditions, but sex offenses need to stick with perpetrators of any sort so that less people choose to go down that path. I think the guy should've known better and though about his future before he committed his offense, because the reality of our world is that people seek something to hate, something to ostracize, something to shun away. I think I'm just gonna pray for the man's well being and pray for his redemption, and keep going on my own merry way.

 

This story does not affect my desire to see this film. Its reviews are fine enough and I am a fan of many of the actors that are a part of the cast.

[AndyK]

Not the greatest press junket so far. 

[MCKillswitch123]

Sex offenders are people who, simply put, should not be allowed out of jail ever imho. They do not deserve to breathe the same air as civilized people. You wanna commit one of the most traumatizing and horrifying felonies you possibly could, and then ask for forgiveness? Wait to see if the person you victimized will ever forget, nevermind forgive what you've done to them, and then we'll talk. And if you wanna give someone who did such thing a second chance, in hopes of rehabilitating them into our society, you also need to realize others' well-funded skepticism on that idea and not be an asshole about it. Simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.

[Valonqar]

I think that there's an avalanche of stupid decisions. Firstly and most importantly, Black shouldn't have cast that guy especially in this climate. I understand that he wanted to help his friend but he should have thought of the movie as a whole and what would happen if his criminal record became public knowledge. as it is, that's exactly what happened and the movie is suffering bad publicity. There are other ways to help him and this was a wrong one. Munn went to the studio and demanded that the guy's scene is removed and they agreed. Why didn't Fox PR take over from there when media got the wind of it? Munn could have said no comment because the case was solved - the scene was deleted and Black was reprimed. media spectacle was unnecessary since no damage was done, in fact, action was taken. So why is Fox PR allowing this mess meaning that individual actor's PR is handling it how they see it fit? So some actors are skipping the press tour, some actors are doing the tour and keeping the controversy in the public eye it and some actors are skipping the tour but tweeting support? It's a mess. Fox PR should have handled this, gave a statement or whatever once media brought it up. Mess. This one is on the studio 100%. They handled it right when the problem was made known to them in private but they messed horribly once it became a public knowledge. Like, couldn't they make a statement that they regretted that the cast member didn't know about the offense and that they did everything in their power to make it right once it was known to them? End of story. Actors could refer to that statement every time they were asked about it. 

[Valonqar]

17 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Sex offenders are people who, simply put, should not be allowed out of jail ever imho. They do not deserve to breathe the same air as civilized people. You wanna commit one of the most traumatizing and horrifying felonies you possibly could, and then ask for forgiveness? Wait to see if the person you victimized will ever forget, nevermind forgive what you've done to them, and then we'll talk. And if you wanna give someone who did such thing a second chance, in hopes of rehabilitating them into our society, you also need to realize others' well-funded skepticism on that idea and not be an asshole about it. Simple as that, as far as I'm concerned.

How is chatting up someone on the Internet "most traumatizing and horrifying felony"? Clearly not as horrifying and traumatizing as maiming and murder. Sexual offenses have many degrees and in this case the guy was chatting up a minor on the internet so lets not pretend that's the same as gang rape that leaves a victim with internal bleeding, organ rupture and lifetime paranoia. Also, degree of crime is confined only to what was done, in this case Internet chat, not to assumptions what could have been. So this guy chatted up a 14 years old girl and served his time for that. He didn't attack her physically nor it is fair to judge him on something that didn't happen but one fears it could have. 

 

This way of thinking is exactly why James Gunn was fired. In MeToo climate, which I'm sure MeToo didn't want to create but things always escalate and ruin the cause, minor offenses are overblown to the point of being treated like major offenses. You joke about pedophilia = you are a pedophile cause why else you would joke about it? You must have abused children in secret. Boom, one gets labelled a pedo and people proceed to discuss him on that term. make no mistake, Gunn didn't get fired because of Chernovich or whatever his name but because current climate allows that kind of spin and quickly rallies up people who'd believe it. You chat up a minor on the Internet and serve time for it, you are treated like a serial rapist and pedo who actually committed sexual abuse of minors judging by the sound of fury heaped at that guy. Sure, he's an offender but degrees are actually important. You can't say that chatting up is up there with an actual rape so why acting like it is? I just don't understand people's need for exaggerating. That doesn't help anyone, in fact, as in Gunn case, it can hurt wrong people. 

[The Futurist]

I don't understand why sex offenders are released from prison in the first place and why they are not shot on sight for their crimes.

Edited September 10, 2018 by The Futurist

[Crainy]

1 hour ago, Nova said:

I think people do have the right to know that. And from there each individual can make the decision for themselves of whether they want to work with said person. 

 

In regards to leaving criminals in jail, that doesnt make any sense. No one is saying these people shouldn't have jobs. What we are saying is that people should have the right to know who they are working with and be able to decide whether they want to work with said person. For example, if a person is difficult to work with, typically that gets around. Everyone finds out so and so is hard to work with. And from there people make the choice of whether they want to work with said person or if they want to avoid the headache and thus not be involved. 

 

Why should it be any different for criminals? If someone has been convicted of beating the shit out of someone, yes I want to know about it. From there I will make my OWN decision of whether I want to work with said person as opposed to someone making the decision for me. Note I am not saying I would not work with said person. I am saying I want to have that choice. 

Alright, thats fair and if you take that position, that is fine and I respect it. Im not saying you are wrong, but the law currently disagrees with you (atleast as far as I know).

 

However, I do have to say that the philosophy you have there is rather cold and unforgiving. For one, its proven time and time again that the regular populance is not good at judging this kind of stuff. Again, thats why we have a justice system.

 

But second of all, imagine this: You are 18, you do some hard drugs once or twice (In this example I assume its illegal in your country), you get caught and end up serving a short sentence in prison. Years pass, you are now 30. You havent done drugs in 12 years, it was just a stupid mistake you once did. You apply for a job. Your employer gets told you did hard drugs, 12 years ago. Despite all this, you still manage to somehow get the job (a miracle really, cause why should they take you if they can get someone equally qualified that didnt do hard drugs). In the job you have to directly work with around 50 people. All of those 50 other people get told you did hard drugs, even before they first meet you. Because of this, alot of the people there have a prejudice towards you. Some are ok with it, but some outright disrespect you. This makes working together very difficult at times, even though you try your best. Some even suspect you might still be using drugs, behind their back. Which isnt true, but rumors start. The rumors reach your boss. All those factors result in you getting fired. You are 35 now, without a job again, because of a stupid mistake you made when you were 18, even though you were basically a completely different person back then and did everything in your power to improve yourself.

 

Does that sound fair to you? Thats what the system you suggest would mean.

 

13 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

I don't understand why sex offenders are released from prison in the first place and why they are not shot on sight for their crimes.

 

Thank you for proving my point. Do you really want someone like The Futurist, who just said that he would shoot you on sight, to be told your previous crimes? People are not responsible enough to handle that kind of information.

 

13 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

How is chatting up someone on the Internet "most traumatizing and horrifying felony"? Clearly not as horrifying and traumatizing as maiming and murder. Sexual offenses have many degrees and in this case the guy was chatting up a minor on the internet so lets not pretend that's the same as gang rape that leaves a victim with internal bleeding, organ rupture and lifetime paranoia. Also, degree of crime is confined only to what was done, in this case Internet chat, not to assumptions what could have been. So this guy chatted up a 14 years old girl and served his time for that. He didn't attack her physically nor it is fair to judge him on something that didn't happen but one fears it could have. 

 

This way of thinking is exactly why James Gunn was fired. In MeToo climate, which I'm sure MeToo didn't want to create but things always escalate and ruin the cause, minor offenses are overblown to the point of being treated like major offenses. You joke about pedophilia = you are a pedophile cause why else you would joke about it? You must have abused children in secret. Boom, one gets labelled a pedo and people proceed to discuss him on that term. make no mistake, Gunn didn't get fired because of Chernovich or whatever his name but because current climate allows that kind of spin and quickly rallies up people who'd believe it. You chat up a minor on the Internet and serve time for it, you are treated like a serial rapist and pedo who actually committed sexual abuse of minors judging by the sound of fury heaped at that guy. Sure, he's an offender but degrees are actually important. You can't say that chatting up is up there with an actual rape so why acting like it is? I just don't understand people's need for exaggerating. That doesn't help anyone, in fact, as in Gunn case, it can hurt wrong people. 

Jesus, thank you. Finally someone with a reasonable point of view who doesnt want to murder people.

Edited September 10, 2018 by Crainy

[Valonqar]

@Crainy You have to give a sex offense example cause the issue is sex offense not just any offense. Regular populace is still very patriarchal (despite denying it) so they view sexual crimes as the worst of all crimes, worse than murder. You'll never see anyone froth at their mouth while talking about murder but they all froth when they talk about any degree of sexual offense including the lightest. Take that into consideration when making a case though verdict is passed by default of that being a sex offense no matter what you say. 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by Valonqar

[Crainy]

2 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

@Crainy You have to give a sex offense example cause the issue is sex offense not just any offense. Regular populace is still very patriarchal (despite denying it) so they view sexual crimes as the worst of all crimes, worse than murder. You'll never see anyone froth at their mouth while talking about murder but they all froth when they talk about any degree of sexual offense including the lightest. Take that into consideration when making a case though verdict is passed by default of that being a sex offense no matter what you say. 

Nova just said that people should have the right to know criminals and their committed crimes, not just sex offenses. My example was directed at that, not the topic at hand, to show the implications of such a system.