| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Should a pedophile be able to make movies?; 'Jeepers Creepers' director Victor Salva | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 30 2017, 05:43 AM (2,416 Views) | |
| EMIYA | Aug 31 2017, 01:18 PM Post #46 |
|
"I am the bone of my sword."
![]()
|
It goes way beyond if a pedophile should make a movie. The answer to that is pretty simple, a resounding yes, if with certain limitations set. What happened here was essentially people used the past criminal records of a man, despite the fact that he had been clean for nearly 30 years and had already paid his dues, to rob him and by connections, everyone else, of their chances with the movie's premier and perhaps even added on more issues. Salva was the victim here. This was not the story of a boycott stopping a pedophile, this was a boycott to stop a movie because the man had a troubled past. In fact, this boycott had nothing to do with Jeepers Creepers 3. Goodness knows beyond maybe of stock footage scene of the second movie, who knows if a child actor would even show up. Right now, Salva is not a criminal or even a pedophile. He is not a convict on the loose. All of this under the law was cleaned when he did his 18 month rehabilitation and kept clean for nearly 30 years. It's the same way that a thief who is released is no longer a thief. That title is now gone and will be gone until they commit the act again. If some of you think 18 months wasn't long enough, that's too bad. It seems to me that 18 months did pretty well considering the guy went on this long without doing anything. And the fact that people care more that he only spent so much time in Corrections despite the fact that it seemed to have worked, shows that people are far more concerned with getting revenge and holding a sense of self justice over someone. It doesn't matter if the person is reformed or not. It doesn't matter if the person has been clean for nearly 30 years since. The only thing that matters is punishment and making sure that some people always face the consequences no matter what. There's no point in bringing up Salva's past, because it has NOTHING to do with this movie. Jeepers Creepes 1,2 and I pretty much guarantee 3, had nothing to do with child sexual exploits, and only one of them had a child actor in it and if I didn't say before, he didn't last past the first 2 minutes of the film. It's easy enough to make someone the villain and that's exactly what the boycott did here. The boycott used a sense of fear on people to get them to turn against both a movie and a director despite the fact that one was clean for 30 years and the movie itself was never about such exploits. It was about opening up old wounds, because this problem never occurred to such a level before with his earlier movies. It was instead brought up now and used as leverage to screw less a film over but a director over. The film and everyone else just became collateral damage. Nobody would've given a s*** if another Director made the movie. And all of this is legal. It's legal to boycott something but now we see the very negative aspects of it. The boycott worked but it wasn't out of any sense of goodness or believing that there was a negative impact of something that needed to be fixed. It was about revenge. It was about getting back at someone who had already paid for their crimes. I can only say, thank god these people aren't part of the judicial system because if they were, our system would be less "Innocent or Guilty" and more "Innocent or Executed." |
![]() |
|
| Copy_Ninja | Aug 31 2017, 02:02 PM Post #47 |
![]()
Novacane for the pain
![]()
|
The guy raped a child. More than once and filmed it, as well as owning child pornography. 30 years may have passed since the commission of the crime but that is what he did. How you feel about that is up to you. Do you think enough time has passed and he has been rehabilitated enough that you feel comfortable enough giving him your money? That's your call and not an unreasonable one to make. Or do you think it's a crime so monstrous that you cannot in good conscience support him? I understand that too. If you do something wrong you are not owed forgiveness. People don't have to forget others past actions just because they are in the past. I don't have strong feelings about Victor Salva one way or the other. I won't watch his movie because I have no interest in it. But I do boycott others. I'll never watch a Polanski movie because he's a POS child molester who fled overseas and never faced justice for what he did. I'm not giving him any of my money. |
We'll never be those kids again
| |
![]() |
|
| EMIYA | Aug 31 2017, 06:12 PM Post #48 |
|
"I am the bone of my sword."
![]()
|
Seeing a movie or refusing to see a movie is one thing. Getting everyone together so they can rally against a film because of a man's past exploits despite those exploits having been cleaned and the moving being nothing about them is different. However, again, that's legal in this so its hard to say what one should do. That's often the flaw of freedom or too much freedom. Sometimes even having too much can be negative. As for the issues of Roman Polanski, considering what happened, I don't blame him for fleeing. The man was ready to take dues under the expectations given to him by the court. Instead, there was several means in which either the judge was going to mess that up and sentence him to 50 years or that former DA David Wells lied about certain involvements to make him look good. Eitherway, both Polanski and his attorney saw that, something was up and that there was no longer any trust involved. I blame Polanski for his crime but i certainly don't blame him for fleeing. Trust with the judicial system was lost and at that point, if you can't trust the justice system, what can you trust? Eventually Polanski made his dues and paid his victim back. Even Samantha Geimer, the girl who Polanski sexually assaulted, has said that she not only forgives him but just wants the whole thing under the rug. She was tired of the unwanted media attention and felt that this was what it was. Just a blatant attempt to to turn her into a sexual martyr to get back at Polanski. It's pretty amazing that a rape victim has more sympathy for her own attacker than she does for the so called people trying to "fight" for her. Much like with Salva, if someone wants to support Polanski or not, fine. However, again, much like with Salva, people want to open up old wounds. And when the the victim unabashedly sides with her attacker and has since forgiven him, even sent E-mails back to him. Then somewhere along the line the sense of "justice" got skewed very badly. |
![]() |
|
| Zorcman | Sep 2 2017, 09:32 AM Post #49 |
![]()
|
If we let registered sex offenders work in other jobs that involve being within sight range of a potential victim, I don't see why not. Keep the guy supervised when working with children and he can't hurt anybody. It'd be the same as keeping schizos from being anywhere near sane people despite being on medication and stable. The s*** you're into doesn't influence your creativity or directing ability, and if people appreciate his talents or offers of working with him enough to tolerate his past history that's their freedom. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
4:53 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy












4:53 PM Jul 13