Page 2 of 2

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 00:22
by bobzilla77
That really was interesting, thanks for posting. Her position is kind of complicated, but that made me understand where she's coming from. I wasn' aware of her book.

I had never seen those pictures he took of her either...shudder!

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 00:24
by bobzilla77
As regards Tarantino though, Geimer certainly doesn't cosign his version of events in which she wanted it/ was Polanski's secret underage girlfriend.

I wonder what possessed him to say that stuff!

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 08:42
by Geezee
sloopjohnc wrote:
Geezee wrote:
Copehead wrote:Read it, sounds like Uma Thurman has a drivers license but can't actually drive.
You can see why she had to be in the car for the shot rather than a stunt double from the director's point of view.
And it seems like there was a break down in understanding about what she was capable of.
A person with a driver's license should be able to drive down a single track road at 35mph without crashing into a tree, Tarantino should be more attuned to what his actors are capable of and Uma Thurman shouldn't pretend she can drive because if that is what happens on a film set she could be deadly on a public road.

In short they all sound like idiots.


The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?
It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.
I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.
However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/j ... ars-on-run


Interesting article with Polanski's victim.

http://quillette.com/2018/01/31/nobodys ... ha-geimer/



It is interesting - certainly offers a broader/different perspective (and it was covered quite broadly at the time when the book was published). That said, although I think Freeman's article would have been better and even more interesting had it offered the perspective from Geimer's book, I don't think it in any way changes or undermines the thrust of her argument: irrespective of whether media has sought to victimise Geimer even more through its subsequent, sensationalised coverage, and irrespective of whether the judge was being "unfair", and irrespective of whether Polanski meant to hurt her or not (I strongly disagree with the line that rapists normally want to hurt their victims - in my experience, rapes are normally purely about self-gratification) - Polanski is still a convicted rapist and a fugitive from the law, and Hollywood's repeated defence of that, or downplaying of the crime he committed, and the line that he has "served his time" (somehow), is frankly disgusting.

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 16:24
by sloopjohnc
bobzilla77 wrote:As regards Tarantino though, Geimer certainly doesn't cosign his version of events in which she wanted it/ was Polanski's secret underage girlfriend.

I wonder what possessed him to say that stuff!


Agreed. But Tarantino looks creepy, talks creepy, so I'm not surprised that he thinks creepy.

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 17:46
by Geezee
And of course a lot of the people who feel that me-too has gone too far use Geimer's comments (selectively) in their support...often with the general line that in all this me-too crazyness we've forgotten to listen to the victims (somewhat ironic given Geimer's own frustration at being labelled a victim) - as if me-too wasn't started and snowballed by women and girls in their hundreds/thousands who are also victims.

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 08 Feb 2018, 17:49
by Dr Markus
sloopjohnc wrote:
bobzilla77 wrote:As regards Tarantino though, Geimer certainly doesn't cosign his version of events in which she wanted it/ was Polanski's secret underage girlfriend.

I wonder what possessed him to say that stuff!


Agreed. But Tarantino looks creepy, talks creepy, so I'm not surprised that he thinks creepy.



Image

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 00:12
by Copehead
Geezee wrote:
Copehead wrote:Read it, sounds like Uma Thurman has a drivers license but can't actually drive.
You can see why she had to be in the car for the shot rather than a stunt double from the director's point of view.
And it seems like there was a break down in understanding about what she was capable of.
A person with a driver's license should be able to drive down a single track road at 35mph without crashing into a tree, Tarantino should be more attuned to what his actors are capable of and Uma Thurman shouldn't pretend she can drive because if that is what happens on a film set she could be deadly on a public road.

In short they all sound like idiots.


The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?
It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.
I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.
However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/j ... ars-on-run


I think he has just apologised for the Polanski stuff saying he was naive and didn't know the full story, he has also apologised to Thurman, I still think someone should be able to drive a car at 35 mph without barrelling into a tree but perhaps there was a serious mechanical failure with the car it is just odd to go around a slight bend and lose control like that.

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 00:15
by Copehead
Geezee wrote:
sloopjohnc wrote:
Geezee wrote:
The actual video is embedded in the article - have you not seen it?
It's not just whether or not she can drive a single track road - the car itself looks like it's falling apart. It looks ugly from the start.
I generally believe in his good intentions on this one - that he really didn't think anything could or would happen. But as Uma plainly makes clear - she put up with a tonne of crp in the interests of their artistic collaboration, and as soon as she called the "safe word" she wasn't listened to.
However, Tarantino's comments on Polanski are unforgiveable and as shocking as Whoopi Goldberg's. The hypocrisy around this really is incredible. I don't read the Guardian much these days, but I felt that this was a very good and well-reasoned article (and again quite incredible that even at the height of me-too Hollywood is still defending Polanski).

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/j ... ars-on-run


Interesting article with Polanski's victim.

http://quillette.com/2018/01/31/nobodys ... ha-geimer/



It is interesting - certainly offers a broader/different perspective (and it was covered quite broadly at the time when the book was published). That said, although I think Freeman's article would have been better and even more interesting had it offered the perspective from Geimer's book, I don't think it in any way changes or undermines the thrust of her argument: irrespective of whether media has sought to victimise Geimer even more through its subsequent, sensationalised coverage, and irrespective of whether the judge was being "unfair", and irrespective of whether Polanski meant to hurt her or not (I strongly disagree with the line that rapists normally want to hurt their victims - in my experience, rapes are normally purely about self-gratification) - Polanski is still a convicted rapist and a fugitive from the law, and Hollywood's repeated defence of that, or downplaying of the crime he committed, and the line that he has "served his time" (somehow), is frankly disgusting.


He probably makes money and that is what's important. This is a town where a racist, misogynistic, anti-semitic, religious maniac like Mel Gibson is feted.

Would you bet against Weinstein making a come back after his treatment for his terrible illness ends?

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 01:04
by bobzilla77
Would you bet against Weinstein making a come back after his treatment for his terrible illness ends?


Actually, yes. I think he is too thoroughly poisoned to come back.

You might start to see the likes of Kevin Spacey around again though, once a few years have passed and they've done their public shame tour. Some of those people will eventually get out of the stockade.

WTF, Mel Gibson's currently making Passion Of The Christ 2!!

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 02:50
by Minnie the Minx
Copehead wrote: This is a town where a misogynistic maniac like Mel Gibson is feted.


Mel Gibson is from Whitley Bay??????

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 03:01
by never/ever
Bernie on FB wrote:
Copehead wrote: This is a town where a misogynistic maniac like Mel Gibson is feted.


Mel Gibson is from Whitley Bay??????


We wish...

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 03:22
by sneelock
bobzilla77 wrote:WTF, Mel Gibson's currently making Passion Of The Christ 2!!


Want to know how it ends?

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 04:23
by Snarfyguy
Is "Electric Boogaloo" the subtitle?

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 09 Feb 2018, 11:18
by Copehead
Sneelock wrote:
bobzilla77 wrote:WTF, Mel Gibson's currently making Passion Of The Christ 2!!


Want to know how it ends?


I know what its working title is:

I know what you did last Easter

Gibson is a nasty piece of work, but his films make oodles of cash so the misogyny and anti-semitism is "forgiven". You'd think Hollywood would shun an anti-semite.

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 12 Feb 2018, 22:58
by bobzilla77
Considering the "passion" is specifically related to Jesus' sufferring on the cross, is he imagining a world where after Jesus rises from the dead, they just nail him back up there, this time using heavier gauge nails?

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 12 Feb 2018, 23:04
by Goat Boy
The Passion was some kind of Bobby Ewing style dream.

This time it's real! Yeah baby!

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 15 Feb 2018, 16:14
by Dr Markus
So is Mel officially "back" without being loved?

Re: Uma Thurman’s Tarantino Bombshells

Posted: 23 Feb 2018, 22:46
by bobzilla77
I guess so. He just did a Christmas family picture with Will Ferrell and Marky Mark.