Badmovies.org Forum

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-predator-20th-century-fox-cuts-scene-with-registered-sex-offender-after-complaint-from?amp&__twitter_impression=true (https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-predator-20th-century-fox-cuts-scene-with-registered-sex-offender-after-complaint-from?amp&__twitter_impression=true)

Personally, I think what they did was wrong.  

The guy paid his debt to society, there was nothing prohibiting him from working on the movie, and the scene was already filmed.

This is just a whining actress that cried and got her way.  She had no problems acting with him until after she found out he committed a crime years ago.  

If she had known about this ahead of time and felt that she wouldn't be comfortable working with him, that's a different story entirely.   

The idea that the cast and crew were supposed to be informed of his past crimes is insane.  Should anyone who works on a movie be required to stand up and receive anything they've ever done that was against the law before they start filming? 

He did the crime.  He did the time.  His past is none of your business. 
I kinda don't want to see this movie now because of her and I wanted to see this movie. 

I kinda felt the same way but wasn't sure about sayind so.

From what I've read on this case it wasn't that he has a criminal past that was the issue for the actress and the studio, it was the fact that it hadn't been disclosed to the studio or the cast who were acting with this man. Who's to say what would have happened if it had been disclosed ahead of time.

He is a registered sex offender and in this day and age people are going to want to avoid being tied to that. The current political and social state requires that everyone examine who they are working with to avoid being vilianized for it. He was convicted of crimes involving a minor and even Shane Black has said that he was misled about what had happened in the case. The man may have served his time but he is still a registered sex offender and has limitations and legal requirements from that.

So he should come onto the set and say "HI EVERYBODY!  LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU!  BTW I'M A REGISTERED SEX! OFFENDER! "

Seriously a convicted murderer isn't required to tell people his  past..

As long as he's not doing anything to break the limits that were placed on him, it's nobody elses business what he did or did not get convinced of.

And this is NOT something we need to encourage. 

Are you sure that there was nothing to prevent him from working on the movie, if there wasn't then he has grounds to sue for discrimination, it's been made clear why his scenes were cut from the movie so I would think that he would have grounds to sue.

It's one of those situations where we don't know all of the facts. I've been researching the sex offender registry laws and haven't been able to find out much but I do know that since his victim was 14 that the California laws on what he can and cannot do as a registered sex offender are a bit stricter and it may be a case of legally it should have been disclosed but wasn't because there's at least one minor on the set that he could have interacted with. Not being aware of where he is registered also means we don't know the exact laws and rules that he needs to follow.

I'm not defending anyone on this just stating that we don't have all of the facts but it seems that even his former supporters are taking that back. It could be because of threats to their careers or that they honestly feel that they cannot support him.

If you want to see the movie go see the movie, his role wasn't one that would impact the storyline if it could be so easily cut.

I just find that be part of the real hypocritical nature of Hollywood.  If the guy had been Roman Polanski, they'd have no problem working with and heaping rewards on him.

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆THIS FTW!!!! ∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆∆

The guy is a sex offender. Not really feeling any sympathy for him at all. He may have been to prison and served his time, but...

If you really think he has paid his debt to society and everything is all square, ask yourself one question. If you had a daughter the same age as his victim, would you trust him to baby sit her?

Somehow, any sympathies I have seem to lie with his potential victim rather than some dirty pervert who tried something it on with an underage kid. Just to me however to me a crime of that nature isn't something you get a second chance on, but then I've always had a problem with child molesters.

My thoughts are along the lines of ok, he got caught don't that. Was it his first time, or had be gotten away with this before (and my understanding is that crimes of this nature are rarely one off's).

Frankly I'd quite happily throw guys like him Polanski and Salva down a pit and leave them all to rot together.

I am quite proud that when I found child porn pictures on my friends computer I made sure that not only did I report him to the police, I took steps to make sure everyone he came into contact with him knew exactly who he was and what he'd done. If I was working beside, or the neighbour of someone who had committed a crime like this damn right I'd want to know about it. I think the right to protect your children trumps his right to privacy. Even though this happened 15 years ago to this day I still made sure when he moved towns, people in the place he moved to found out about his past.

If you are going to have live beside or work with someone like that, it sure as s**t is your business, and no amount of PC bull about having what rights they have after they have served their time is ever going to beat that for me.

I agree with Alex. "He did his time." f**k that.
Child molesters don't usually change they're stripes.
He get's no sympathy from me.
Should have cut his balls off. And let him rot in prison for the rest of his life.

I don't know how it is in the US but in the UK you are required to list any what are called unspent convictions to any employer on a job application.

For sex offenders- you are listed.
But I reckon if you have enough pull or money-who cares , right?

It is sadly true that having money gives you a certain amount of protection from the law, something that seems to be a universal truth across our world.

Am I the only one that find it absurd or at least poorly thought out to tag people with a virtual kiss of death in employment terms that expect them to ever be useful members of society again?  :question:

I don't think they should allowed back into society. They should be locked up forever or killed.
If they touched my kid I would f**king kill them.

That is something he should have thought about before doing his crime. He has paid the price the law demands for it, now he'll pay societies. For William (the guy I reported) it would have been much easier for me to mention his name to certain people and he'd have disappeared, but I figured that would be too quickly over and I did not owe him any mercy. So now he lives a life without friends, if he gets a job it will be minimum wage, no chance of ever getting a girlfriend.

He'll live a sad, lonely life. He'll live alone and when he finally dies he will be unmourned and quickly forgotten. To me that is a suitable punishment. And to me that is a very useful thing to society, much more useful than him getting a job. Other creeps like him can take a look at him and think "Wow, that is how I could end up." Let them see him out on the street, being spat on, mocked, being kicked and punched by passers by. If he moves to an area where people don't know him he should have to wear a sign announcing "I am a filthy f**king pervert!" so parents know to keep their kids away from him and he can never be a threat to children again.

If you want this man to have a job, I can think of openings in areas like drug trials (rather than testing on animals), minefield clearance, bomb disposal... any number of ways he could be useful. Giving him roles in big Hollywood movies, f**k no. I find that an incredibly stupid and inane thing to do that sends out all kinds of wrong messages. Not to mention the effect on his would be victim who if she goes to see a film and see's this guy face on the big screen.

If you really want him to contribute something useful make him stand in the centre of the town he lives in once a week while someone smashes his nuts between two bricks. That would send out a very useful message for society.

Instead of thinking about the effects of this wannabe child molester and how terrible it is for him try thinking well he put himself in this position when he decided he wanted to f**k one of his relatives who at 10 years younger than him was still a minor. Maybe he mistook the name of the film he got a part in and thought it was called 'The Sexual Predator', but I am sure there are plenty of other actors out there who don't have his background and who can just contribute to society in a much better way than this kind of filthy scum.

For some reason you seem to keep sympathising with this guy. I've not once seem you mention his potential victim. What about her or anyone else he managed to get away with abusing? Where is your help for them instead of someone who made a choice to put himself in this position?

Every day someone like this guy spends on the earth should be a punishment, the same as it would be for anyone he was able to victimize and trying to rebuild their lives.

So basically we're just into torturing and murdering people we don't like now regardless of what the law says and that people should never have a chance to redeem themselves or move on with their lives. 


Frankly, some of the attitudes I've seen in this topic just outright disgust me. 



I think I'm going to have to take a break from this place for a while.  I've just suddenly lost a lot of respect for people here. 

Frankly if you support someone like him, I have no wish to have your respect. The fact that you've went on about his right to move on without once mentioning his victim I find totally disgraceful. Where is her rights, her support, the sympathy for her, but have some guy in a film scene cut out and ooooh how terrible! We must give him every chance to rebuild his life, put other kids at risk so he can prove he has changed.

Not on my watch.

Common sense is if a rabid dog is running loose-you kill it.
Sexual predators are WORSE than most murderers. Most people kill other people because someone is f**king someone's wife, or robbing someone, or they just got p**sed off.
Child molesters and serial killers do it because it turns them on. That don't usually change with these people. It would be like trying to get me to stop liking peanut butter. Child molesters will ALWAYS be turned on by kids. It's in they're DNA. Like Bundy was born to kill.
Some people should die. That's just common knowledge.

Keep debating whether or not I should wade into this pit again or not.  Lots of emotions running high, it's worse than a political debate....

If your talking about Polanski- yeah- I like his old movies.
Should he go to prison if he comes back here?
Yes-he should. f**k him.

I found this article on Polanski interesting.
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run)

It's enlightening how only one of his defenders has now chosen to speak about defending him and taking back their defence of him. There is a double or even triple standard in Hollywood, I think that there is a movement to do away with it but there is still a long way to go and a lot of that has to do with ego. It takes someone being a prolific abuser for there to be a movement against them and it shouldn't take that much.

Yeah,  Hollywood will forgive a pedophile.  But if you're fat the hate never stops....

We donct have "un spent convictions" in Americas and what are they?  In america yiu are forever required to tell any employer about any convictions even if yiu served the max sentence.

I wouldn't say it's a Catch 22, but perhaps a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. There are different sides to this. 'Sex offender' is a term which covers a very broad range of crimes, everything from indecent exposure, which could happen if you drunkenly went to the toilet in public or walked naked in your house but on view of the public, to an 18 year old having sex with a 16 year old in some jurisdictions, all the way to child kidnapping and rape. It's very broad and to label every sex offender as evil is an emotional leap which needs to be examined.

That's a sensible view that takes courage to express.

yes, it is, and i completely agree. :cheers: