Birth of a Nation | Fox Searchlight | Sundance Grand Jury Prize. ONLY DISCUSS THE MOVIE AND BOX OFFICE IN THIS THREAD.

[grim22]

21 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

 

Hitler loved his dog very much, real footage proves this.

 

 

 

Right to Hitler in one post flat.

[Nova]

1 minute ago, jandrew said:

 

Hmm... 2/10 would not bang.

[Nova]

2 minutes ago, grim22 said:

 

Right to Hitler in one post flat.

Don't be surprised. Everything goes from 0 to a thousand in less than a second on these forums. 

[trifle]

38 minutes ago, The Panda said:

 

I think Tele's fine to offer an alternative point of view.  Whenever the Internet gets mad at somebody it can become like an echo chamber of hatred torwards them that they may or may not deserve.

 

Whether or not I agree with the alternative point of view doesn't change the fact that it should be brought up and listened to so you can have a clearer picture of what happened.

 

Maybe Nate Parker is actually innocent?  I'm definitely not saying that I think he is (because I don't think he is), but it's worth trying to hear another point of view because there's always a possibility that yours is wrong.

 

Regardless, I really don't like how Nate or Fox has handled the controversy.  It's definitely putting me off.  Maybe this Birth of a Nation will parallel the other in that they'll both be well-crafted films but regarded with disdain for reasons (Rascism and being a KKK recruitment tool on the old ones part, and this controversy for the new one).

 

 

Tele can speak for himself, but I don't think he's saying the guy is innocent just that he has a life and this is one act in the life, which occurred a number of years ago, and the guy built a life since then, so it is tragic all the way around.

 

But given that testimony the jury apparently found credible says Parker thought calling someone in to enjoy his drunk to the point of unmoving date was ok at that time makes me wonder about his overall personality.  That's not just an 'unthinking mistake.'  Guys aren't 'just like that', in my circles, anyhow.  And the second guy was convicted on that basis and only had the trial overturned because his attorney hadn't objected to introduction of tapes of phone conversations in which Parker discussed the situation.  Reading the Beast's account of the court record, what was ADMITTED is bad enough.  That second guy Parker called in to partake after he did was asked what signal the girl gave to 'consent', had she smiled, winked?  And he testified 'it just happened.'  The jury apparently didn't consider that sufficient, since they convicted him. And the guy who left and wouldn't join in, and said her arms weren't moving as the second guy climbed on apparently seemed credible to the jury.  And the girl went from a straight A student to dropping out, doing pills, and committing suicide.

 

With one of them the star and the other a co writer, there is no way this isn't an issue for this movie.

 

26 minutes ago, BoxOfficeChica said:

If Parker comes to believe the movie's prospects (and his own) hinge on showing contrition about the case, or FSL believes it's the movie's only hope, NP will suddenly go around saying he's very, very sorry (without admitting guilt, but conceding to recklessness/irresponsibility/immaturity on his part), whether he genuinely means it or not.

 

 

 

Saying he's sorry but not saying he did it isn't confession and repentance in my book.  It's trying to have your cake and eat it, too. People who want to believe him will, and then there are always those who won't even know about this.  I have no idea what the box office will be, but I'm not paying to see it.

[Frozen]

So will Girl on the Train win the weekend?

[Sam]

4 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

Well, that s the thing with crimes, though, you can live the most perfect life, be a hard working stand up guy for 85 years, that doesn't substract that moment when you destroyed another life for one hour one evening.

 

Most violent criminals hide their inner monster.

 

 

People can change, sure.

 

Doesn't make the bad shit they did go away.

 

His own current actions/words offer little on the "he's changed" narrative though, and that's the problem. 

[filmlover]

27 minutes ago, Frozen said:

So will Girl on the Train win the weekend?

This isn't even guaranteed to make as much in total as The Girl on the Train will on its first weekend (and that's opening with high 20's at most in all likelihood).

[WrathOfHan]

29 minutes ago, Frozen said:

So will Girl on the Train win the weekend?

Mag 7 could threepeat  

[Dementeleus]

1 hour ago, The Panda said:

 

I think Tele's fine to offer an alternative point of view.  Whenever the Internet gets mad at somebody it can become like an echo chamber of hatred torwards them that they may or may not deserve.

 

Whether or not I agree with the alternative point of view doesn't change the fact that it should be brought up and listened to so you can have a clearer picture of what happened.

 

Maybe Nate Parker is actually innocent?  I'm definitely not saying that I think he is (because I don't think he is), but it's worth trying to hear another point of view because there's always a possibility that yours is wrong.

 

Regardless, I really don't like how Nate or Fox has handled the controversy.  It's definitely putting me off.  Maybe this Birth of a Nation will parallel the other in that they'll both be well-crafted films but regarded with disdain for reasons (Rascism and being a KKK recruitment tool on the old ones part, and this controversy for the new one).

 

I agree with basically all of this. The only reason I offered that tidbit is that -- to me, at least -- it indicates his statement is at least sincere. I think it also shows a profound lack of responsibility, and that's disturbing and sad and gross, but there you have it. My friend knew him as a good guy with five young daughters, and this was all really troubling for him too. It can be tough to square away the person you think you know with actions they've committed. There's a whole lot of ugliness and misery created from his actions back then, and.... I don't know what else to say. It's terrible in basically every way.

[comicbookguy]

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. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by comicbookguy

[filmlover]

4 minutes ago, comicbookguy said:

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. 

[Jason]

11 minutes ago, comicbookguy said:

Yes, no 'poisoning the well' going on in here.

 

 

Hint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

Edited August 19, 2016 by Jason

[La Binoche]

People don't truly change. Behavior is mutable, personality isn't. People alter their behavior according to what's expected of them, according to changes in society and in their lives, in order to succeed and survive. But deep down they'll always be the same. 
 

[DeeCee]

I'd just like to point out that in the august history of the US legal system not a single individual has ever been found innocent of the crime for which they have been charged. 

[Dementeleus]

11 minutes ago, comicbookguy said:

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.

 

Putting aside the actual incidents themselves: Amber Heard has a minor role in JL. Saying she should be dismissed from the movie because she filed a lawsuit against Depp -- a lawsuit that was settled in her favor -- has very little to do with the movie itself. For better or worse, Parker is front and center with BOAN -- he co-wrote, produced, directed, and stars in it. In no way, shape, or form does the movie exist without him (and, for that matter, his co-writer).

 

Can you not see the difference?

[Jason]

43 minutes ago, comicbookguy said:

Does this effect the quality of any film Nate Parker will be in or is involved with? No.

 

No one here is arguing that Nate Parker's actions mean that his films must be low quality films. They're arguing that they don't want to support the film because of his actions, which is different. It is not poisoning the well.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Jason

[comicbookguy]

11 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

No one here is arguing that Nate Parker's actions mean that his films must be a low quality films. They're arguing that they don't want to support the film because of his actions, which is different. It is not poisoning the well.

 

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. 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by comicbookguy

[Kvikk Lunsj]

1 hour ago, La Binoche said:

People don't truly change. Behavior is mutable, personality isn't. People alter their behavior according to what's expected of them, according to changes in society and in their lives, in order to succeed and survive. But deep down they'll always be the same. 
 

I believe people can change. Not everyone does but some people do change. 

[JennaJ]

12 hours ago, The Futurist said:

 

Well, that s the thing with crimes, though, you can live the most perfect life, be a hard working stand up guy for 85 years, that doesn't substract that moment when you destroyed another life for one hour one evening.

 

 

Here's the thing though - he didn't just ruin her life by commiting a singular act. The most damning thing about this to me is the way he and his friend hounded her, made her identity known around campus (by hiring a PI who spread her photo around), had their friends join them in calling her out and hurling sexual epithets at her wherever she went and generally made her feel unsafe and intimidated.

 

The Lawsuit she filed against Penn State detailed all of this behavior, and it went on for a long time. 

That, to me, makes it absolutely impossible to support Nate Parker or his movie. Any person who can act this way deserves no leniency. 

 

This is the civil lawsuit filed against Penn State which details the harrasment: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/civil-complaint-2-wm.pdf 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by JennaJ

[Noctis]

^ Exactly. The man was fucking filthy, and no one can deny he's a murderer.