Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35920143)

"Could have" is meaningless. He just as easily "could have not bothered". To actively harm what little careers they had at the time, would have meant involving other people. Is there any sign of that happening? There is no automatic right to a stellar career based on one success that would likely be down to ability of others. Most of them are completely replaceable by others. They largely have no unique or intrinsic ability. They should stop whinging the nonsense about harmed careers.

Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 35920146)

Power and influence goes a long way. Consider this.



Other producers respect his opinion. Don't employ her would go a long way in Hollywood.

Producers are the ones who make the money available for films to be made they can easily be scared off by another producer who they believe to be more knowledgeable of the actor/actress. e.g. "don't invest in that film unless she/he is replaced, they'll cost you a fortune in delays as they are prima donnas!"

That is the reality of Hollywood.

Originally Posted by Mick (Post 35922471)

These actors and directors seem to think they are above redemption. Weinstein thinking his pervy tendencies is an illness that needs curing and Spacey making an half assed apology because he cannot remember if he did or didn’t have sex with a 14 year old boy but last time I heard, having sex with a child, is a crime.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35922479)

tbf, he is not accused of having sex with a 14 year old, but of making sexual advances.

Still disgusting and illegal, but not the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41799026

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35922480)

why wait over 30 years to say something ??

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35920145)

why did these people wait until they where famous and well off before complaining .

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35922483)

like this you mean nomad