All the Money in the World | 25th of December, 2017 | Wahlberg's gotta get paid

[RandomCat]

10 minutes ago, AndyK said:

Hmm, Since there are no formal charges, I'm guessing his contract means he'll still be making money from the movies success.

 

 

Depends on the contract, but I doubt he will now.

[Avatree]

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

[filmlover]

2 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

Because why should the hard work of everyone go to waste because no one will be able to watch Kevin Spacey in anything without feeling uncomfortable any time soon?

[Avatree]

3 minutes ago, filmlover said:

Because why should the hard work of everyone go to waste because no one will be able to watch Kevin Spacey in anything without feeling uncomfortable any time soon?

again he has not been found guilty of anything. If watching Kevin Spacey acting in a movie makes you feel uncomfortable then you probably have issues up there.

[RandomCat]

2 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

Besides the fact that proving guilt has nothing to do with whether a business retains a person, but the scandal is enough that it can bring enough of a negative image to the proceedings to hurt their continued profits. Besides the fact that is the exact opposite way slander works, Slander is only when the statement is proved false, not until it is proved true.

 

But as a business perspective, Sony had no choice in the matter. Scott did this, on his own. and now the film has turned negative buzz into positive buzz building up into award season. And will probably make more money now then it would have a week ago, or even before the accusations against Spacey.

[filmlover]

1 minute ago, RandomJC said:

Besides the fact that proving guilt has nothing to do with whether a business retains a person, but the scandal is enough that it can bring enough of a negative image to the proceedings to hurt their continued profits. Besides the fact that is the exact opposite way slander works, Slander is only when the statement is proved false, not until it is proved true.

 

But as a business perspective, Sony had no choice in the matter. Scott did this, on his own. and now the film has turned negative buzz into positive buzz building up into award season. And will probably make more money now then it would have a week ago, or even before the accusations against Spacey.

Scott also wins because his original choice for the part (Christopher Plummer) has ended up in the film when Sony wanted a "bigger name" (Spacey). It feels like people are actually rooting for this film to succeed now.

[AndyK]

4 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

Besides the fact that proving guilt has nothing to do with whether a business retains a person, but the scandal is enough that it can bring enough of a negative image to the proceedings to hurt their continued profits. Besides the fact that is the exact opposite way slander works, Slander is only when the statement is proved false, not until it is proved true.

 

But as a business perspective, Sony had no choice in the matter. Scott did this, on his own. and now the film has turned negative buzz into positive buzz building up into award season. And will probably make more money now then it would have a week ago, or even before the accusations against Spacey.

Even though I have said in another thread that I am not in favour of pitchfork justice, this is a purely business decision.

[TalismanRing]

9 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

Ridley Scott made a unilateral decision.  He wants his film to be seen by as many people as possible and maybe wants it up for Awards consideration.  Neither would happen with Spacey attached and promoting the film would be a nightmare.

 

It's only slander or libel if it's proven to be untrue.  The court of public opinion is not the court of law - there is no need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to take action.  

 

Otherwise, Weinstein would still be running his company and be a member of the Academy and Producer's Guild.  He's not.

These rumors have been going around for years.  Rapp gave an interview to The Advocate about this in 2001 and they redacted Spacey's name for fear of a libel suit.  Not any more since there have now been numerous allegations spanning decades and  at least two continents.

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, AndyK said:

Even though I have said in another thread that I am not in favour of pitchfork justice, this is a purely business decision.

I think it's a shrewd decision by Scott who saw an opening to get the actor he wanted in the role, into the role. I think it falls more on the creative than business side of that line.

 

I also wouldn't call this pitchfork justice.

[Eric Furiosa]

7 minutes ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

Not gonna dwell on it too much, because it's somewhat off-topic, but I could see where you're coming from if it was just Anthony Rapp. I'd still be more prone to agree with his side, but you have a leg to stand on. But with as many as eight production members from House of Cards admitting Spacey has harassed them, and I'm sure there are other stories arriving that I haven't seen yet, it seems to me Spacey really is a harasser and a terrible man.

 

Obviously, I don't condone or support false rape claims. Nobody does. But if dozens of different allegations point to the idea that Spacey is a bad man, there seems to be a good amount of evidence Spacey's a terrible person who should at least be considered likely to be guilty.

[AndyK]

11 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

I think it's a shrewd decision by Scott who saw an opening to get the actor he wanted in the role, into the role. I think it falls more on the creative than business side of that line.

 

I also wouldn't call this pitchfork justice.

No, the studio must do what it can to mitigate any losses.

 

But its trial by twitter that has caused this in the first place.

 

We have gone through this in the UK a while ago, there has been a number of high profile cases, there has also been a number of high profile cases where the accused has been found to be innocent.

 

In one case the police tipped off the BBC that they were going to raid a well known (and loved) celebrities home and it was broadcast on TV, all on one persons heresay, he was subsequently completely exonerated. But not until after a year of torment.

 

Not saying this guy is innocent, just this should not be being played out in public, its become entertainment for a certain crowd.

Edited November 9, 2017 by AndyK

[Blankments]

4 hours ago, Christmas baumer said:

I can't be sure of this of course, but if it had been just the initial accusation about making advances to Anthony Rapp, then maybe he would not be pulled from the film.  But this new allegation that he got a boy drunk and then grabbed his genitals, is the one that sealed the deal.  This makes him a pervert and a deviant and it's no wonder he got pulled from the film.  

tbf, if it just his accusation, nothing would've happened. Spacey admitting it probably happened when it was drunk while using his sexuality as an excuse is what is killing his career.

[Jake Gittes]

If Spacey were innocent it would seem logical that he'd be denying the accusations with all the force and conviction he could possibly muster, instead he's "seeking evaluation and treatment" and doesn't seem to be putting up much of a fight. That by itself is telling. 

[Goffe]

17 minutes ago, Jake Gittes said:

If Spacey were innocent it would seem logical that he'd be denying the accusations with all the force and conviction he could possibly muster, instead he's "seeking evaluation and treatment" and doesn't seem to be putting up much of a fight. That by itself is telling. 

 

What choice did he have? He could deny everything and face everyone's ire or he could confirm the accusations, apologize and hope everyone wouldn't be too hard on him. Hollywood is an extremely image-conscious environment. 

 

Btw I'm not defending him.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Goffe

[MrGlass2]

2 hours ago, MrGlass2 said:

Spacey is toxic at the moment to say the least (and it could get worse any day)

I didn't read the news when I wrote this... It could get worse for him every hour now.

[Premium George]

2 minutes ago, Goffe said:

Let's be honest here, what choice did he have? He could deny everything and face everyone's ire or he could confirm the accusations, apologize and hope everyone wouldn't be too hard on him. Hollywood is an extremely image-conscious environment. 

 

Btw I'm not defending him.

Now that there are half a dozen stories about him, no reaction from him could have saved him. But if he was innocent, he could have left out "improving himself" part out of equation. Also wrong coming out timing.

[4815162342]

41 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

 

It's only slander or libel if it's proven to be untrue.  The court of public opinion is not the court of law - there is no need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to take action.  

 

 

In civil court they'd only need a preponderance of the evidence, so basically 50.000001%.

 

But as you said, public opinion needs less.

Edited November 9, 2017 by 4815162342

[RandomCat]

51 minutes ago, AndyK said:

No, the studio must do what it can to mitigate any losses.

 

Sorry, but in all reporting has been it was Scott's decision. You can keep trying to blame the studio, but it was Scott taking advantage of the public opinion to get who he wanted in place.

 

Everything else, well you've got your own opinions on the matter, I have mine. I don't agree with yours, and you aren't going to change mine. So I'm leaving that there.

Edited November 9, 2017 by RandomJC

[Barnack]

2 hours ago, Manchester by the Tree said:

This is just plain ridiculous. The man has been found guilty of precisely nothing. Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less. Very sad that we live in this modern "progressive" world where your career can be destroyed by unfounded allegations.

 

From a business perspective why is Sony doing this? Like, no one is going to watch the movie regardless of who is in it. Why bother spending millions on such major urgent reshoots?

Studio's are not in good position to not give directors what they want, risking a pr crisis, would it be Weinstein Co. saying no to Sheridan, Sony to Scott, etc...

 

Spacey is a bit different, lot of accusation's are about how he act on set during production, it was probably already well known by the employer and for work related offense you do not need to be proven guilty to get consequences.

 

In general the very strong response to the public open case of the Industry and the total absence for the other well known case by the industry but not by the public is probably a good way to protect itself, those "strong" measure on high profil case can help save the industry reputation and let them continue to deal with it by themselve, MPAA style, without really changing things too much.

 

Quote

Until proven guilty it is slander nothing more nothing less.

Well no, slander require the statements to be false. It is more neutral than that (until the alleged victim are proven guilty of slander)

Edited November 9, 2017 by Barnack

[Avatree]

1 hour ago, RandomJC said:

Besides the fact that proving guilt has nothing to do with whether a business retains a person

Personally I do not believe businesses should be allowed to sack people (or refuse to hire them) based on unproven allegations.

 

equally I think Harvey Weinstein should not have been sacked from his company.

Edited November 9, 2017 by Manchester by the Tree