PDA

View Full Version : Mel Gibson: Is his career over?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21

heckles
07-18-2010, 05:00 PM
His wife was a sacred chalice, and Mel decided he wanted someone he could do "dirty" things with that he would never have his wife do (he certainly seems obsessed with oral sex on the tapes).

There were rumors for years that while Mel claimed to be a good family guy who brought his wife and kids to the movie set in their own trailer, what wasn't as publicized is that he had an additional trailer for a mistress.

DBZ
07-19-2010, 01:10 AM
Some sources are speculating now that Mel is considering moving back to Australia with his ex-wife.

Article (http://blog.zap2it.com/thedishrag/2010/07/mel-gibson-may-leave-us-and-return-to-australia.html)

Other sources deny this.

I could definitely see him maintaining a viable presence in the industry more easily if he decided to move away.

cruisin
07-19-2010, 01:59 AM
Personally, depending on what happens to him legally, I think he should go away from the public, permanently. I think he needs extended rehab and therapy. I think he should take his money, find some place where he can stay out of trouble, and live out his life.

orbitz
07-19-2010, 02:25 AM
I could definitely see him maintaining a viable presence in the industry more easily if he decided to move away.

But who in Hollywood would want to be associated with him? Any projects they do with him, they will constantly be asked by the press about Mel Gibson instead of discussing their projects.

I hope Mel will at least attend some sessions on anger management.

heckles
07-19-2010, 02:42 AM
But who in Hollywood would want to be associated with him?

Oh please, look how the Hollywood elite want to slobber on Polanski's greasy dobber.

orbitz
07-19-2010, 03:11 AM
Oh please, look how the Hollywood elite want to slobber on Polanski's greasy dobber.

You can't really compare the two cases. Polanski's case happened "ages" ago and did not occur during the internet-utube-twitter age. I'm not sure how many people can actually relate to it. Mel Gibson's case is all over the current media and it's very in your face. You can't ignore it.

cruisin
07-19-2010, 02:25 PM
You can't really compare the two cases. Polanski's case happened "ages" ago and did not occur during the internet-utube-twitter age. I'm not sure how many people can actually relate to it. Mel Gibson's case is all over the current media and it's very in your face. You can't ignore it.

How can you say that people can't relate to it? Maybe if the extradition attempt had not happened, people (who were not around at the time) would not be aware of what Polanski did. But it was all resurected by the "new media sources". The man was (maybe still is) a child molester, no excuses. Another example of a sleazy creep is Woody Allen. To paraphrase a wise person (;)) why do Polanski and Allen get a pass and Gibson should be hung from the rafters? Gibson's behavior was horrible, but no more horrible than Polanski's and Allen's.

orbitz
07-19-2010, 03:11 PM
The current generation don't relate to Polanski's case, because it's not an in-your-face current event like it is with Mel's.

attyfan
07-19-2010, 03:33 PM
Maybe, also, people are just following the lead set by the respective victims. In Polanski's case, the victim has said that she wants no further prosecution, etc.; Gibson's victim, OTOH, has taken a different tack.

WindSpirit
07-19-2010, 04:00 PM
How can you say that people can't relate to it? Maybe if the extradition attempt had not happened, people (who were not around at the time) would not be aware of what Polanski did. But it was all resurected by the "new media sources". The man was (maybe still is) a child molester, no excuses. Another example of a sleazy creep is Woody Allen. To paraphrase a wise person (;)) why do Polanski and Allen get a pass and Gibson should be hung from the rafters? Gibson's behavior was horrible, but no more horrible than Polanski's and Allen's. But did Polanski and Allen really get a pass? As in were not criticized by many people including those who said they'd never watch any of their films.

And why is so important to compare a case in this thread to others (one of them has its own thread anyway) and compare degrees they were discussed at, criticized, etc.? To say which one was the most important, horrible, etc.

cruisin
07-19-2010, 04:19 PM
But did Polanski and Allen really get a pass? As in were not criticized by many people including those who said they'd never watch any of their films.

And why is so important to compare a case in this thread to others (one of them has its own thread anyway) and compare degrees they were discussed at, criticized, etc.? To say which one was the most important, horrible, etc.

Please see posts 244, 245, & 246 for explanation :)

I guess, my comments were based on some of the posting on the Polanski thread. There are some who do not think he should be extradited and face his sentence. Apparently the Swiss government agrees :rolleyes:. You are right that there were some who said they would never watch their films, I am one of them, and I haven't. With the exception of Vicky Cristina Barcelona, because I didn't realize that Allen directed it before I went to see it. However, I think many people who felt that way at the time those men committed their, um, "indiscretions", have mellowed and not held to their boycott. And the same will probably happen with Gibson.

And FTR, I did not say any of them were more or less horrible or important. I said they were all equally horrible :).

kwanfan1818
07-19-2010, 04:25 PM
But did Polanski and Allen really get a pass? As in were not criticized by many people including those who said they'd never watch any of their films.
Not a complete pass, but Polanski won an Academy Award with televised standing ovation, and Allen has received a half dozen nominations since his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn went public.

Allen's US box office (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/WoodyAllen.php) numbers have never been all that strong in the US, so it's hard to say how much the people who made the decision in the early '90's to boycott his movies really impacted his box office. The movies for which there are worldwide gross figures generally have made significant dollars outside the US.

"The Pianist" made $32m in US sales (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=pianist.htm), and nearly triple that in foreign sales. It also won six Palme d'Or awards at Cannes. It was a pretty artsy movie, and artsy film audiences usually know the players.

I think the point of comparison is that it's interesting to see what transgressions are career destroyers.

cruisin
07-19-2010, 04:30 PM
^^ Thanks :)

Cheylana
07-19-2010, 05:07 PM
I think the difference is that back in the seventies, Polanski's crime was not viewed as big a deal as it is today. Acquaintance rape was not taken seriously, and the victim's sexual history was up for scrutiny in the courts. Apparently the girl had already had some level of sexual experience with boyfriends, so she might have been skewed had the thing gone to trial - even without a trial, I think back then there was a lot of "yeah she was 13, but she was no innocent virgin / she was asking for it." :rolleyes: No small wonder the poor girl wanted it to go away.

cruisin
07-19-2010, 05:31 PM
I think the difference is that back in the seventies, Polanski's crime was not viewed as big a deal as it is today. Acquaintance rape was not taken seriously, and the victim's sexual history was up for scrutiny in the courts. Apparently the girl had already had some level of sexual experience with boyfriends, so she might have been skewed had the thing gone to trial - even without a trial, I think back then there was a lot of "yeah she was 13, but she was no innocent virgin / she was asking for it." :rolleyes: No small wonder the poor girl wanted it to go away.

Even back then Polanski was seen as a predator. He was pled guilty and fled the country to avoid sentencing. Whether or not the girl was sexually active, she was 13 and he gave her drugs.