[ SECRET POST #4020 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4020 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________


















02. [SPOILERS for The Last Jedi]

[Star Wars, TFA and TLJ]


__________________________________________________



03. [SPOILERS for Orwell]



__________________________________________________





04. [WARNING for discussion of rapefic]



__________________________________________________



05. [WARNING for discussion of sexual violence]

[Goblin Slayer]


__________________________________________________



06.[WARNING for discussion of Weinstein/sexual assault]



__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of rape]














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #575.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

06.[WARNING for discussion of Weinstein/sexual assault]
https://i.imgur.com/UpaYhym.png

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Jackson's on the record that he dropped Sorvino and Judd off the casting list because Mirmax framed them as "difficult to work with."

And TBH, there's just so much retaliation shit sticking to Weinstein right now that Jackson admitting that he fell for a smear campaign is entirely credible.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure but keep in mind that dropping them off the casting list does NOT mean they were going to be given roles in the franchise. According to Jackson, that conversation took place in 1998, while the films were still being developed and they were still throwing ideas around. During that stage of development in any big movie, names get attached and dropped from projects all the time. There's no guarantee either Sorvino or Judd would've even been serious contenders for roles in the film, so it's not quite the same thing as having a big starring role taken away from them.

[(Anonymous)]

There's no guarantee either Sorvino or Judd would've even been serious contenders for roles in the film, so it's not quite the same thing as having a big starring role taken away from them.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what difference that makes?

[(Anonymous)]

If you don't see a difference between being dropped off a very long, very hypothetical list of possible actresses for a role and getting dropped from a role in which you were officially cast, I can't help you.

[(Anonymous)]

She'd still have a better chance at getting the role if she wasn't dropped due to a smear campaign by a sexual predator.

[(Anonymous)]

This.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

As far as I can tell, there's no claims to the latter.

But a question is, who else got the message that Sorvino, Judd, and about a half-dozen others were unprofessional and "hard to work with," and how many other long lists did they get dumped from as a result?

It's textbook retaliation.

[cbrachyrhynchos]

Of course not, but as far as I can tell, not one single person is claiming they were on the shortlist for roles in the franchise, only that Weinstein was, in fact, attempting to blacklist actresses.

[(Anonymous)]

Doesn't that just make it worse, that it was so easy for Weinstein to crush that single window of opportunity she had in the industry?

[(Anonymous)]

... it wasn't the single window of opportunity she had in the industry, though. Sorvino's filmography shows that she's been working steadily since 1993 until till the present time.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT I agree, but the OP is saying that she was a terrible actor, i.e. she only got cast because she was pretty, so it's ok for Weinstein to have blacklisted her, her career would have failed anyway.

[philippos42]

As if "Hollywood" weren't actually the Weinsteins and people who listened to them. I can believe Mira Sorvino was sabotaged.

[(Anonymous)]

I honestly don't understand wtf it will take, if an A-list producer and director plainly states he was influenced by Weinstein's bullshit to drop Judd and Sorvino, but OP can still turn around and come up with sexist reasons to deny the facts. Look, proof! And yet...more denial! This is just one Director/Producer speaking up here. Just one! Think about how much influence Weinstein had and multiply, and then multiply by actresses he blacklisted (or could blacklist) and multiply the Weinsteins, and then think about the scope of the problem here.

Now do you acknowledge? Or continue to deny and put it on the actors for "aging out" for being catty or difficult to work with or whatever other excuses there must be for their careers taking a tanker (or never getting started) after encountering these buttholes and saying "no" to sexual demands?

[(Anonymous)]

Some people will never be convinced, because "wimminz are lying hoes who lie about sexual assault for $$$, and anyway wimminz age like milk so it's unimportant". Jesus Christ could come down and point out exactly what you pointed out, and they'd still deny.

I don't necessarily agree.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's probable that if Weinstein said these things to Jackson, he said them to other people, taking opportunities away from her. And 1998 (when this happened) was twenty years ago, when she was 31. Julia Roberts, Nicole Kidman, and Laura Dern are all the same age, they don't seem to have had issues getting big roles around that time and for years afterwards. Now, you could argue that they are better actors, but that is more subjective than you would think. I think Nicole Kidman is very uneven, in some things, she's good, in others, she really isn't. I think Julia Roberts is generally good, sometimes great, but sometimes only fair.

Assuming that you are correct about her acting ability, that wouldn't negate what Weinstein did. As a matter of fact, that would have just made it easier for him to derail her career. She was clearly being considered. And there are a lot of not great actors out there that have careers that have flourished by taking part in a major film or two.

[(Anonymous)]

Being mediocre at acting hasn't stopped hundreds of stars from succeeding. Look at the top ten actors of the year, it's usually people like the rock and marky mark.

[(Anonymous)]

"Things might not have worked out anyway" doesn't excuse someone trying to make them not work out.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, that was in 1998 when she was 30-31 years old. Hollywood sure does have a drought of roles for "older" women, but that's women in like, their 50s.

[(Anonymous)]

Your ageist bullshit is inaccurate: she was born the same year as Miranda Otto, who played Eowyn (they're both 50 now). She's only about a year older than Cate Blanchett, who played Galadriel (she's 48 now).