Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Good Movies => Topic started by: Barack Clinton on February 26, 2011, 05:59:19 PM



Title: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Barack Clinton on February 26, 2011, 05:59:19 PM
OK, my other thread about actors you won't watch got a lot of replies, and that's good. The thing is I originally meant to ask about actors you won't watch for reasons not really related to their acting ability, or lack thereof.

I mentioned gary busey and billy zane as actors I won't watch because they were in "Valley of the wolves", a viciously anti american, anti-semitic film that might as well have been made be al-queda studios that was little more than a muslim version of "The eternal jew".

So could we have a thread here about actors you won't watch for reasons not related to their acting ability or it's conspicuous absence?  I won't watch the above not due to their talent but because they were in a movie I found to be on par with a nazi propaganda film that attacked america and jews. (I have a oood jewish friend.)

I know some people, for example, won't watch jane fonda for political reasons, that's the sort of thing I'm curious about here.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Mr. DS on February 26, 2011, 09:54:57 PM
Mel Gibson for his ridiculous behavior and bible thumping ways.  He's turned into a pathetic human being...perhaps he always was.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: InformationGeek on February 26, 2011, 10:28:50 PM
There isn't a single actor or actress for me, mostly because I only care about the acting in general and not there background and actions.  Though Woody Allen would probably be the only exception to the rule for me.  Then again I never seen any of his movies...


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Rev. Powell on February 26, 2011, 11:07:12 PM
None.  Heck, I'll listen to Wagner's music, and he was an anti-Semite.  I separate their artistic/professional lives from their personal lives and beliefs.  Human beings are made up of both bad and good. 

The closest I would come to boycotting someone is with Roman Polanski, who apparently did molest a teenage girl and get away with it.  But even in his case I separate his personal failings from his artistic successes.



Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: ulthar on February 26, 2011, 11:14:36 PM
My reason for disliking Adam Sandler has nothing to do with his acting ability.

It was because of comments he made in an award acceptance speech (I think at teen choice awards a few years ago?).

I took from that speech that he is a jerk and not worthy of any respect whatsoever.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Olivia Bauer on February 28, 2011, 02:33:14 PM
Nobody. I think it's a pig-headed thing to hate an actor for non-acting reasons. I don't care what they do behind the scenes I'll watch any film that might be good.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Flick James on February 28, 2011, 02:59:06 PM
None.  Heck, I'll listen to Wagner's music, and he was an anti-Semite.  I separate their artistic/professional lives from their personal lives and beliefs.  Human beings are made up of both bad and good. 

The closest I would come to boycotting someone is with Roman Polanski, who apparently did molest a teenage girl and get away with it.  But even in his case I separate his personal failings from his artistic successes.



There are no words to express my outright agreement with this.

Let's see. Perhaps 50  :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 's and a  :cheers: will do it.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: The Burgomaster on February 28, 2011, 05:26:41 PM
In the short-term, I wouldn't watch a Mel Gibson movie.  Can't support his violent, anti-female, psychotic disposition.  But let's see if he straightens himself out (and how much time will need to pass before I forget how dispicable I think he is).

More recently, I've just about had enough of Charlie Sheen.  He's done enough to destroy himself and those around him recently that I have no interest in supporting his career.  Too bad, because I generally enjoyed his work over the years.   


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Flick James on March 01, 2011, 10:28:59 AM
How long does Mel Gibson have to be up on that cross (pardon the bad joke)? Seriously, with all the hedonistic tendencies of people in Hollywood, does he have to be demonized to such an extent? How about the woman who recorded him and put out stuff for the public that was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS? What a great woman. As despicable as many of the things were that he said, that which is said in the heat of a divorce should not be heard by us. Oh, and Zach Galif-whater-the-f**k-his-name-is having a hissy fit over Mel appearing in a sequel of The Hangover? What the f**k? That just makes no sense. Here is a film of unbridled hedonism and chauvinism, and all of a sudden he's got such delicate sensibilities. Blow me.

It reminds me of a story from around 1980 concerning one of my musical heroes, Elvis Costello. He was drunk and in an argument with Steven Stills and referred to James Brown as a "jive-ass n-word" and Ray Charles as a "blind, ignorant n-word." Sounds absolutely atrocious, right? And it is. As the story got out he got in a lot of hot water (understandably so) and made numerous apologies and since then has made numerous comments about what a source of shame that moment was. He even passed up an opportunity to meet Ray Charles later because of his guilt and shame. He was drunk, adrenaline going, and trying to come up with the most obnoxious thing he could think of to say (mission accomplished) in order to end the argument. People heard him however, and Steven Stills chose to spread the incident as well. Ray Charles was asked to comment at the time and he basically said it wasn't a big deal and that words spoken in drunkeness shouldn't be published.

Those were different times. Now we see f**king everything. From Paris Hilton's hoo-ha to David Hasselhoff's drunken Vegas experiences to you-name-it. I know there's the argument that celebrities know what they're getting into when they become celebrities, but it's not like it was in the old days when they at least had some form of concealment from the public. I'll bet that none of them willfully expected what they got in this day and age. It's disgusting and their personal lives are none of our damn business. And it seems that the people who are responsible for exposing private moments of celebrities without consent are really not held liable like they should.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: The Burgomaster on March 01, 2011, 02:43:17 PM
How long does Mel Gibson have to be up on that cross (pardon the bad joke)? Seriously, with all the hedonistic tendencies of people in Hollywood, does he have to be demonized to such an extent? How about the woman who recorded him and put out stuff for the public that was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS? 

I think once you make violent threats towards women (or anyone) you open yourself up to the story becoming public.  How can you compare her releasing the tapes to the public to his wild, violent, psycho rant?  The women who hide these things usually end up getting beat up . . . or worse.  I'm glad she did it.  He's no better than an unemployed boozer in a wife-beater T-shirt as far as I'm concerned and he deserves whatever bad publicity he gets.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Flick James on March 01, 2011, 04:18:56 PM
How long does Mel Gibson have to be up on that cross (pardon the bad joke)? Seriously, with all the hedonistic tendencies of people in Hollywood, does he have to be demonized to such an extent? How about the woman who recorded him and put out stuff for the public that was NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS? 

I think once you make violent threats towards women (or anyone) you open yourself up to the story becoming public.  How can you compare her releasing the tapes to the public to his wild, violent, psycho rant?  The women who hide these things usually end up getting beat up . . . or worse.  I'm glad she did it.  He's no better than an unemployed boozer in a wife-beater T-shirt as far as I'm concerned and he deserves whatever bad publicity he gets.

Was she right in recording calls if she's in an abusive relationship? Yes.
Was she right in seeking help to get out of the relationship? Yes.
Was Mel Gibson demonstrating some serious problems on those tapes? Yes.

The problem comes in when we are hearing them. I listened to them because I'm a human being and given the opportunity I took it. But the point is, I should never have heard them. It's dirty laundry and I question her motive for making it public. I think Mel needs help, I think he realizes it. Furthermore, there HAVE been people who have known him a long time who have come forward and said that he is a decent man, he has changed, and they hope the best for him. Whoopi Goldberg (not that I'm a Whoopi fan) said he is a very good man and these recordings are not a good indication of the kind of man he is. Even his ex-wife came out and defended him.
 

Besides, we don't know the whole story, do we? Have you ever been through a divorce or an extremely nasty breakup? If you have, then you know that human beings can say and do things in the heat of such insanity that are inappropriate, nasty, and downright irrational. Those recordings absolutely reeked of a man in the throws of desperation, despair, and of course, lots and lots of anger. None of our business. I have a hard time believing that when he was in the middle of those tirades that he was even beginning to think of the public consequences.

This is in NO WAY a defense of Mel Gibson in any way, shape, or form. If he abused his wife, it's reasonable that we would have heard about it, as it is news. That's as far as it should have gone. He should be legally liable for whatever transgressions he is guilty of, but she should be liable for releasing those recordings and the damage it has done to him professionally. And much of Hollywood is extremely hypocritical to go after him and virtually blacklist him.

I hope he gets the help that he seems to need, I don't discredit any of the work he has done because of it, I hope he moves on and improves himself and his life, and by goodness I'm going to watch The Road Warrior tonight because it's one of my all-time favorite movies. 


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: skuts on March 02, 2011, 01:58:37 PM
Bob Hope "comedian". Life-time asset of British Intelligence, mind-controlled slave handler, and manipulator of the "entertainment industry" on behalf of the Illuminati. The "Rat Pack", including Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Junior, and Dean Martin were all heavily involved with Hope and others in the same line of work.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/list_of_satanist.htm (http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/list_of_satanist.htm)

One of the most spectacular tales of CIA nastiness comes from Brice Taylor, self-proclaimed CIA mind-control victim. What Taylor lacks in proof, she makes up for in sensationalism. According to Taylor, she was a victim of Project Monarch (allegedly part of MK-ULTRA, a notorious CIA mind control program) from early childhood, and was used as a CIA love-tool by the likes of Henry Kissinger. One of her alleged greatest tormentors was none other than Bob Hope, which explains the title of her autobiography, Thanks for the Memories. All of this is (of course) part of a Satanic-Illuminati-NWO plot to control the planet.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/cia_slaves.htm (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Disturbing%20Truths/cia_slaves.htm)


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: SPazzo on March 03, 2011, 10:26:51 AM
There really isn't anybody I won't watch for non-acting reasons.  I have been pretty close to not watching a Roman Polanski film, but I like his movies too much to not watch them.  The only other person who comes close would be Woody Allen...  But then again, I like his movies too, even if I don't approve of how he is in real life.  Plus he has some good quotes (see my signature).


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: peter johnson on March 03, 2011, 01:55:51 PM
Good lawd, skuts, is you fo real?

All this you mention has been soundly debunked by Fortean Times magazine ages ago - 'can't believe anyone is still falling for it -

peter.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: ChocolateChipCharlie on March 03, 2011, 02:25:49 PM
(http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/030804gibsonmel.jpg)


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Flick James on March 03, 2011, 02:49:24 PM
([url]http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0304/030804gibsonmel.jpg[/url])


The older he gets the more he looks like my dad.

No, I don't look like Mel Gibson in any way, shape, or form. I am far more attractive.


Title: Re: actors you won't watch for NON-ACTING reasons.
Post by: Raffine on March 04, 2011, 10:53:48 AM
Quote
Bob Hope "comedian". Life-time asset of British Intelligence, mind-controlled slave handler, and manipulator of the "entertainment industry" on behalf of the Illuminati.


(http://www.georgejgoodstadt.com/goodstadt/i/bob_hope.jpg)

"And wouldcha believe I still couldn't convince 'em to give me the Oscah!"