Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
I guess I'd say about the machine bit - nobody would know they were using my work - that's the Kane deniability.
Would I watch another Weinstein movie? I'm sure I would, though I certainly wouldn't pay money to go see one. I wouldn't put a poster for one up in my home, I wouldn't wear a t-shirt with a catch phrase from the film, there's a lot I wouldn't do. More than anything, I wouldn't be able to watch any such film without the knowledge of Harvey tainting my experience.
It'll be interesting to see how I react to the next Tarantino movie, given he's admitted to knowing the whole time. Probably puts a dent in my Django 2 hopes. My initial response is, I've given QT quite enough money for one lifetime. We'll see if I'm a hypocrite
|
I admire your conviction, and I don't think that would make you a hypocrite, but I think it does expose some failings in your logic. It probably isn't a stretch that all movies (since Weinstein entered the business) could be tainted by virtue of that knowledge if you want to go there. Six degrees of separation, and all of that. I just think it would be an impossible standard to uphold.
Similar for sports heroes/merchandise. There are all sorts of examples of terrible people being really good at throwing a ball or stopping a puck or whatever. Those that wear the jersey are almost certainly celebrating the good skills and not the terrible people part.
EDIT: I shouldn't have included the "since Weinstein" qualifier. Edison himself seemed to have been a pretty terrible human being on many levels, so maybe all movies are tainted?