3 ms·

Legally it may be right but morally it just pisses me off. What world do we live in when some religions nuts are allowed to exert undue influence by threatenin

by Fuxy 13y ago

Legally it may be right but morally it just pisses me off. What world do we live in when some religions nuts are allowed to exert undue influence by threatening the actors. What you feel insulted by a movie? Keep it to yourself and move on. I don't care if you're Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever the new religion your neighbor came up with once you start forcing your beliefs on other people by threats or whatever you find appropriate you have crossed the line.

onion2k 13y ago
I think all ginger-haired people should be sent to live on an island! Woah there Fuxy, that's a bit nasty! You shouldn't say things like that. -- And, of course, you didn't. It doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with the statement, if you fear that ginger-haired people will take offence, or if the more extreme ginger-haired will attack you for it - the fact is, if someone deliberately misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world. In the case of this film it's quite possible that being associated with it might well harm the actor's ability to work. It's quite reasonable that they should go to court to express the fact that they didn't agree to be a part of what was eventually released. This is really quite a simple case of deception - the actors were told they were signing on for one thing, and the director made something completely different. He lied to them. He shouldn't have done.
- Fuxy 13y ago
  It is quite clear by now that none of the actors ever knew what they were signing up for. That is quite rude on the producers part however the reality is producers are bound to fuck you over if you act for long enough. Really not cool on his part but that's a different issue. The person didn't exert her rights because she didn't agree with the movie she did it because she got death threats. Motivation is important.
  - pekk 13y ago
    The producer should have recruited for the movie he was going to make, or had everyone sign an appropriate contract. It's not right to throw the rights of the actors out the window just because Islam got involved.
- waps 13y ago
  > misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world Really ? We're talking about actors here. Isn't this akin to claiming Christian Bale's political views have been "misrepresented" as vigilantism ? Seriously. These are actors. Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. I find it weird that people are conflating different religions/ideologies here and attempting to apply one to the other, and guess what ? 1) people are angry about the result 2) it doesn't work, doesn't produce consistent thinking Let's get real here : a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam. This should not be looked at as exceptional at all, in fact it is quite normal for religions and ideologies to do this. It is the normal case for ideologies to hunt down and punish/kill criticism. Yes, Christianity doesn't do so, and obviously America's own brand of democracy doesn't either (of course, in both cases you can still give examples where people were executed for their opinions. The point is, it is not done as a matter of course, the way it is done in islamic nations, or china) b) The idea of separating the person from their political (and business) activities the way it is done in the modern western world, like you're doing, sounds absurd to anyone outside of said western world. In most societies, whether muslim, chinese, black african ideologies, the roman empire, ... and even what we know about others like aztec civilization there is absolutely zero difference between the person, the job, and the political activities. So yes, in all those civilizations actors routinely get punished if they follow wrong ideologies. c) the idea that no ideology is "wrong" (or rather, that there is more than one acceptable ideology at all) is very new, and fake. Obviously what people really mean is that as long as you consider our Christianity-derived law as the primary ideology, you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. What is considered "disgusting", "extremist", "evil" and extremely illegal however, is applying even tiny amounts of sharia, or for another example communism in cases where it would violate our normal law. This is of course the whole point of those ideologies. What people mean when they say communism is NOT voluntary sharing of capital. What people mean when they say islam is NOT partially applying muslim food laws.
  - onion2k 13y ago
    Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.

by Fuxy 13y ago

onion2k 13y ago

I think all ginger-haired people should be sent to live on an island! Woah there Fuxy, that's a bit nasty! You shouldn't say things like that. -- And, of course, you didn't. It doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with the statement, if you fear that ginger-haired people will take offence, or if the more extreme ginger-haired will attack you for it - the fact is, if someone deliberately misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world. In the case of this film it's quite possible that being associated with it might well harm the actor's ability to work. It's quite reasonable that they should go to court to express the fact that they didn't agree to be a part of what was eventually released. This is really quite a simple case of deception - the actors were told they were signing on for one thing, and the director made something completely different. He lied to them. He shouldn't have done.

Fuxy 13y ago
It is quite clear by now that none of the actors ever knew what they were signing up for. That is quite rude on the producers part however the reality is producers are bound to fuck you over if you act for long enough. Really not cool on his part but that's a different issue. The person didn't exert her rights because she didn't agree with the movie she did it because she got death threats. Motivation is important.
- pekk 13y ago
  The producer should have recruited for the movie he was going to make, or had everyone sign an appropriate contract. It's not right to throw the rights of the actors out the window just because Islam got involved.
waps 13y ago
> misrepresents your views by making up something that you didn't say and putting your name on it then you should be able to have a say about whether or not that thing is disseminated around the world Really ? We're talking about actors here. Isn't this akin to claiming Christian Bale's political views have been "misrepresented" as vigilantism ? Seriously. These are actors. Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. I find it weird that people are conflating different religions/ideologies here and attempting to apply one to the other, and guess what ? 1) people are angry about the result 2) it doesn't work, doesn't produce consistent thinking Let's get real here : a) it is an essential part of islam, to hunt down and execute people who criticize islam. This should not be looked at as exceptional at all, in fact it is quite normal for religions and ideologies to do this. It is the normal case for ideologies to hunt down and punish/kill criticism. Yes, Christianity doesn't do so, and obviously America's own brand of democracy doesn't either (of course, in both cases you can still give examples where people were executed for their opinions. The point is, it is not done as a matter of course, the way it is done in islamic nations, or china) b) The idea of separating the person from their political (and business) activities the way it is done in the modern western world, like you're doing, sounds absurd to anyone outside of said western world. In most societies, whether muslim, chinese, black african ideologies, the roman empire, ... and even what we know about others like aztec civilization there is absolutely zero difference between the person, the job, and the political activities. So yes, in all those civilizations actors routinely get punished if they follow wrong ideologies. c) the idea that no ideology is "wrong" (or rather, that there is more than one acceptable ideology at all) is very new, and fake. Obviously what people really mean is that as long as you consider our Christianity-derived law as the primary ideology, you can call yourself whatever the fuck you want. What is considered "disgusting", "extremist", "evil" and extremely illegal however, is applying even tiny amounts of sharia, or for another example communism in cases where it would violate our normal law. This is of course the whole point of those ideologies. What people mean when they say communism is NOT voluntary sharing of capital. What people mean when they say islam is NOT partially applying muslim food laws.
- onion2k 13y ago
  Nobody in their right mind assumes they espouse the views they do on screen. No one assumes that the actor believes the same thing as the character, but they will, quite reasonably in my opinion, assume that the actor agreed to act in the film with the dialogue they are hearing. Very few actors would sign on to a project where they're being filmed knowing nothing at all of the audio that is going to be added later. That's essentially what happened here. The director lied to them. It's not fair to deny them the opportunity to disassociate themselves from the film if that happens.