Oprah backs out of sexual assault documentary bound for Apple TV+, film will not air on Ap...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29

    apple ][ said:
    apple ][ said:
    The photo you are referencing is from 2014 and well before Weinstein’s issues came into the public.
    The public might not have known about it, but I believe that it was a well known open secret in Hollywood circles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41588203/harvey-weinstein-s-behaviour-was-open-secret
    Your claim is the Oprah knew and your stated evidence is a picture. So your belief that she knew lacks any sort of substance and based on very weak conjecture. I would think that if someone you knew was accused of sexual misconduct that you would object to people saying you were aware of the behavior simply because you were pictured with them. Maybe not, maybe you enjoy being the target of baseless accusations. 
    Nope, there's also the claim that hollywood knew, outlined by the bbc link, and Oprah being one of the most powerful players would have certainly known, if that claim is true.
    This was your initial claim:

    "I saw one photo where Oprah seemed to be very cozy with the sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, kissing him on the cheek, and yet she is making a documentary about sexual predators and metoo, yet Harvey Weinstein, a high profile sexual predator that has been all over the news is somehow omitted from the documentary?"

    You are clearly claiming that based on "one" photo you saw that the two had a "cozy" relationship, implying she knew how about Weinstein's behavior and that because of that "cozy" relationship she is omitting him from a documentary about sexual predators. 

    To get to your claim you had to misrepresent what the film was actually about and draw a lot of conclusions from a single photograph. You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior. I'm out. 





    They all knew about Harvey Weinstein. All of them. The only reason none of them did anything was because he was the head of a studio and when people go to the head of a studio they want to make a business deal.
    entropys
  • Reply 22 of 29
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,169member
    I find his resume quite interesting & full of recognizance 


    fastasleep
  • Reply 23 of 29
    entropysentropys Posts: 3,508member

    apple ][ said:
    apple ][ said:
    The photo you are referencing is from 2014 and well before Weinstein’s issues came into the public.
    The public might not have known about it, but I believe that it was a well known open secret in Hollywood circles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41588203/harvey-weinstein-s-behaviour-was-open-secret
    Your claim is the Oprah knew and your stated evidence is a picture. So your belief that she knew lacks any sort of substance and based on very weak conjecture. I would think that if someone you knew was accused of sexual misconduct that you would object to people saying you were aware of the behavior simply because you were pictured with them. Maybe not, maybe you enjoy being the target of baseless accusations. 
    Nope, there's also the claim that hollywood knew, outlined by the bbc link, and Oprah being one of the most powerful players would have certainly known, if that claim is true.
    This was your initial claim:

    "I saw one photo where Oprah seemed to be very cozy with the sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, kissing him on the cheek, and yet she is making a documentary about sexual predators and metoo, yet Harvey Weinstein, a high profile sexual predator that has been all over the news is somehow omitted from the documentary?"

    You are clearly claiming that based on "one" photo you saw that the two had a "cozy" relationship, implying she knew how about Weinstein's behavior and that because of that "cozy" relationship she is omitting him from a documentary about sexual predators. 

    To get to your claim you had to misrepresent what the film was actually about and draw a lot of conclusions from a single photograph. You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior. I'm out. 





    They all knew about Harvey Weinstein. All of them. The only reason none of them did anything was because he was the head of a studio and when people go to the head of a studio they want to make a business deal.
    Quite so. His behaviour was ignored because it was long accepted that it was what you you had to put up with to make it in the industry. The casting couch was real, and always has been. To pretend that a person in the position of Oprah did not know about it is laughable. 
    Once it came out though, oh the calumny and didn’t know. Uh huh. Oprah. Hung. Out. And. Partied. With. Weinstein. A lot.

    And then for a film industry person to try and do the same to the music industry (no doubt just as bad) smells of “ooh, we got caught- hey look over there!”.

    the music industry would no doubt be in many ways be worse, going by just about any video clip by some of its more prominent male stars, but established major players in the film industry just cannot do any investigation or exposé of its sister industry because to be frank they are damaged goods. Seeking redemption and rehabilitation by trying to shift accusations to others is not that path.
    edited January 2020
  • Reply 24 of 29
    digitol said:
    I'm continually super disappointed by Apple's conduct these days. From Genius Bar scams, to forum censorship, to now this bait n switch technique. Two prime examples of this include: iTunes. iTunes used to be a "digital jukebox" which has now morphed into a bloated horrible punishing confusing app, that primarily now spams &  sells you Apple's music service.  AppleTv. Apple Tv used to be a great way to experience movies, tv shows, in a way that was annoying/horrible on other platforms. Can you say logins/id's please? Or go to  whatever site / activate and Verify to view. Apple TV came up with an elegant solution to this problem and bundled it to a new app called Apple TV. Now with Apple TV + we once again get Apple's payed services shoved down our apple pi-holes . (there is a secret n there)  :pensive: Now my user experience  is awful. I counted almost in every row, and more than 6 times, Apple TV + encouraging me to "learn more"  "just try it"  "free trial" ya whatever Apple. The only thing I'm going to try is the freaking awesome ROKU imbedded tv that I set up for a friend. This thing had a software tuner, built-in to the Roku, which made for a seamless experience between streaming tv apps/channels/content, and actual cable box tuning. The only thing keeping Apple on top is that the Other's suck worse. From what I just experienced, at the start of this year, this could be changing. Apple beware. 
    I’m pretty sure this guy is providing disinformation against Apple for a marketing company contracted by one of their competitors. It’s the only way his rant could possibly make sense.
    What’s your proof that you are pretty sure this guy works for a competing marketing company? What if I said I made some baseless claim like I’m pretty sure your comments were because you [put in some unsupported claim - if you want I could make up some for you]]. If you can’t back it up, shut up.
  • Reply 25 of 29
    Oprah is a giant hypocrite! It’s laughable that she’s a spokesperson for Weight Watchers since she goes up and down in weight (mostly up) like a yo-yo. She employs a personal chef yet the fact has never wavered that she could play linebacker in the CFL. 
  • Reply 26 of 29
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 956member
    Think more like PBS meets HBO. A reputation for quality and diversity with high-budget content that just keeps coming. I think they're off to a good start (way better that their first stabs at TV shows, that's for sure). The high quality and diversity appeal to me, but I guess some people have too short an attention span to "enjoy the journey" of watching a new service grow.
    No. PBS has stopped being PBS a long time ago and HBO has just a few good shows.

    It is encouraging that Richard Plepler will be working with Apple, but that will take some time. He was one of the reasons for the success of HBO prior to the AT&T takeover.

    There will be a shakeout coming with streaming services and I wonder if Apple has the stomach to stick it out. Sony has pulled the plug on PlayStation Vue and AT&T has made a mess of things with DIRECTVNOW or whatever they are calling it today. Comcast- owner of Universal and NBC has a service coming and  AT&T has HBOMax coming shortly. Expect the newly merged ViacomCBS to expand upon the CBS All Access service to add in the former Viacom properties and the Paramount movie studio and library.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    apple ][ said:
    apple ][ said:
    The photo you are referencing is from 2014 and well before Weinstein’s issues came into the public.
    The public might not have known about it, but I believe that it was a well known open secret in Hollywood circles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41588203/harvey-weinstein-s-behaviour-was-open-secret
    Your claim is the Oprah knew and your stated evidence is a picture. So your belief that she knew lacks any sort of substance and based on very weak conjecture. I would think that if someone you knew was accused of sexual misconduct that you would object to people saying you were aware of the behavior simply because you were pictured with them. Maybe not, maybe you enjoy being the target of baseless accusations. 
    Nope, there's also the claim that hollywood knew, outlined by the bbc link, and Oprah being one of the most powerful players would have certainly known, if that claim is true.
    This was your initial claim:

    "I saw one photo where Oprah seemed to be very cozy with the sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, kissing him on the cheek, and yet she is making a documentary about sexual predators and metoo, yet Harvey Weinstein, a high profile sexual predator that has been all over the news is somehow omitted from the documentary?"

    You are clearly claiming that based on "one" photo you saw that the two had a "cozy" relationship, implying she knew how about Weinstein's behavior and that because of that "cozy" relationship she is omitting him from a documentary about sexual predators. 

    To get to your claim you had to misrepresent what the film was actually about and draw a lot of conclusions from a single photograph. You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior. I'm out. 
    "You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior."
    It is just to "start a conversation"
  • Reply 28 of 29
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,244member
    apple ][ said:
    apple ][ said:
    The photo you are referencing is from 2014 and well before Weinstein’s issues came into the public.
    The public might not have known about it, but I believe that it was a well known open secret in Hollywood circles.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41588203/harvey-weinstein-s-behaviour-was-open-secret
    Your claim is the Oprah knew and your stated evidence is a picture. So your belief that she knew lacks any sort of substance and based on very weak conjecture. I would think that if someone you knew was accused of sexual misconduct that you would object to people saying you were aware of the behavior simply because you were pictured with them. Maybe not, maybe you enjoy being the target of baseless accusations. 
    Nope, there's also the claim that hollywood knew, outlined by the bbc link, and Oprah being one of the most powerful players would have certainly known, if that claim is true.
    This was your initial claim:

    "I saw one photo where Oprah seemed to be very cozy with the sexual predator Harvey Weinstein, kissing him on the cheek, and yet she is making a documentary about sexual predators and metoo, yet Harvey Weinstein, a high profile sexual predator that has been all over the news is somehow omitted from the documentary?"

    You are clearly claiming that based on "one" photo you saw that the two had a "cozy" relationship, implying she knew how about Weinstein's behavior and that because of that "cozy" relationship she is omitting him from a documentary about sexual predators. 

    To get to your claim you had to misrepresent what the film was actually about and draw a lot of conclusions from a single photograph. You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior. I'm out. 
    "You are engaging in deception and conjecture in an attempt to smear someone. It's really vile behavior."
    It is just to "start a conversation"
    People who want to stop conversations about issues always want to start conversations about hypocrisy.
  • Reply 29 of 29

    Winfrey in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter said she is stepping away from the as-yet-untitled documentary citing creative differences with filmmakers Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering. The film, which was set to debut at the Sundance Film Festival in January, follows a former music executive who accused industry titan Russell Simmons of rape.
    The tin foil hat dude sitting in my chair translates that as "they found dirt on one of my friends/associates and I don't want to be a part of it."
Sign In or Register to comment.