- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
Agree. Multiverse of Madness is a bog standard MCU film with a little more vivid depictions of violence and a Bruce Campbell cameo.
Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic
- Thread starter Enriku
- Start date
-
Happy Easter!
- Status
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
There the reason for that is it's not actually a Raimi film. Sure, he directed it but keep in mind due to the VFX drama we know that that just means he filmed a bunch of green screen footage which got edited into a "movie" about a month or two before release. The actual person who wrote the movie and would have more control over it is Michael Waldron, a Rick & Morty writer who also wrote the Loki show. This is why there's only crumbs of Raimi's style which feel more like obligation.Now I'm really glad that I didn't see this film. Why even bother? The chance to finally cross over the MCU with the Singer X-Men and other non-Disney Marvel casts was given when Iger bought Fox and they had the chance to make use of it via "The Multiverse." Fans new and old alike would've loved it, but this is all they do? Did Sam Raimi pull a Rian Johnson? Was he trolling the audience? Is he a secret asshole?
Most MCU writers especially now come from comedy series like Rick & Morty, Community, or the Office. The upcoming She-Hulk show is the product of Jessica Gao, same woman who gave us Pickle Rick. Comedy drowning out everything is a common MCU complaint but it makes a lot more sense when you look at behind the scenes stuff and understand they're intentionally trying to make comedies. Look up the writers for recent projects yourself and you'll see it.
Arthur Morgan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2019
He's not an expert on anything. Even the thing he dedicated his early life to (Nintendo and Mario) he gets a ton of things wrong. But he's insistent that he's right because his version fits in with the narrative he's built in his head.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
So this is why they ripped off a nigh-identical plot point from Rick & Morty: digging up a long-decayed corpse from an alternate dimension to save the day.
The MCU has become so creatively bankrupt that the writers are plagiarizing themselves.
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2013
Pretty much. I wish autistic coverage of behind the scenes drama was more common instead of a lot of their fuck ups being attributed to a vague "Disney" who's talked about like a single person or "Marvel" which ignores Marvel Studios being a separate company from the guys who do everything else. It's a complete circus once you go below the surface. It'd be a really easy job to make videos about even if you'd end up blacklisted by Disney.
Another random rabbit hole I can point out besides the comedy writers is ever since Hawkeye, Kevin Feige gets top billing on everything instead of the lead actors or director. Pull up any of the posters or watch the credits and you'd see "A KEVIN FEIGE PRODUCTION" before anything else and before even Marvel comes up iirc. I'm still unsure if that's Marvel Studios buying into their hype as usual or somebody's trying to set him up as a fall guy to jettison in the future if they need to buy more time. The problem with the latter is I'm unsure who'd be behind that if it's the case but it's clear somebody wants you only thinking of him with these things.
Open Window Maniac
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2021
All this Marvel talk makes me realize a few thing:
1.) They really need to re-release Marvel vs. Capcom 2
2.) Bob lost both his feet to diabetes
1.) They really need to re-release Marvel vs. Capcom 2
2.) Bob lost both his feet to diabetes
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
There were rumors going around that the first edit of the movie was horrible and they had to reedit it to make it more "dr. strange" oriented and Raimi like.
- Joined
- May 11, 2021
Hack writers love this idea of multiverses they've all glomed onto because it means they don't have to bother paying attention continuity or lore. Everything is such a clusterfuck now due to multiverses. Like Terminator or Star Trek.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
They'll never be able to. They can't even re-release MvC 3 with it's same roster because of character copyright chicanery. I can only imagine the legal nightmare of trying to release a game with a roster of something like 57 characters from something like 5 different franchises. The game industry and the mouse has robbed us of a truly great and wonderfully imbalanced game.
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
(The Federalist article)
Don't tax my Superior Future Coastal Elites Who Actually Matter; tax the greedy Midwest pig-ghouls instead!
The so-called workers hate the queers and the fairygenders.
May I ask what slurs do "pronouns" stand for?
InfraHaz.
Gaypox continues to spread.
So is Bobby saying that he wishes the gays would stop barebacking (which is homophobic and erases the existence of gay men), or is he suggesting that we'd rather not report the rising cases?
No Bobby I'm sure your account is secure by now.
The replies of the OT are mostly "Puppy breeders are gougers" and "Why didn't she adopt?"
The problem with turning spider silk into useful material are protean and quantity is the least of it. Scientists have trouble turning synthesized spider-silk protein into a useful molecular configuration. And, as Bobby might have stumbled upon in his comment '"You can't fix something by making it BIGGER", the strength of the silk doesn't scale.
The Syndercutters threaten another insurrection. Fortunately Alan Horn has come to roost and, as imagined by Bobby, is itching for some "house cleaning".
A table of execs recount how they found the perfect director for 300.
Dan Floss goes picking on Bobby re: MCU's exploitation of vfx artists.
Bobby blames people for lacking comprehension while he continues to lie.
A bunch of closet cases lust over Bean Panther:
Just watch some gay porn instead!
What you're staring at? Namor's wings are down there!
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
NGL I'm dying to see what happens when Bob sees that reply about him being a LOLcow. Will he just block Geralt without warning? Or deny being a "LOLCow" and get dogpiled on for the simple fact that YES, ROBERT. YOU ARE A FUCKING LOLCOW. From saying "Who are you [again]?" to using "Yer Mum" over 20 years past its best-before date, to crying about being "borderline gaslit" after Hotdog Abortion crushed your hopes and dreams that you would one day marry her and have
Last edited:
NaviSpider
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 10, 2022
I don't know how you go through his tweets on a daily basis Positron. Trying to read his horrible syntax and INSISTENCE on capitalising AT least one random word per tweet makes me want to eat a bullet.
I love the sheer lack of self awareness of Bob. Mocking people who will be excited for Battfleck appearing in the new Aquaman for 30 seconds when he creams his pants at the most minor cameos in any MCU film.
"Oh my GOD (i don't believe in god obviously I'm not red trash) it's INCREDIBLE that if you look in the background of a scene in ETERNALS 3 you can see what looks like a bit of Red Hulk's nut sack. This is SO f---ing (sorry my mom says I can't swear in her basement anymore) cool in terms of what it means for phase 16!"
I love the sheer lack of self awareness of Bob. Mocking people who will be excited for Battfleck appearing in the new Aquaman for 30 seconds when he creams his pants at the most minor cameos in any MCU film.
"Oh my GOD (i don't believe in god obviously I'm not red trash) it's INCREDIBLE that if you look in the background of a scene in ETERNALS 3 you can see what looks like a bit of Red Hulk's nut sack. This is SO f---ing (sorry my mom says I can't swear in her basement anymore) cool in terms of what it means for phase 16!"
Laughingjoke2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2019
The cameos were fan service Jim from the Office was cast because Fans have been fan casting him for years as Mr. Fantastic. & that's the thing most X-Men fans universally love the 90's X-Men Animated Series with only a small minority disliking it while the Fox Films are divisive with X-Men fans some love them to the point as seeing them as the template for X-Men and many hate them. I was on X-Men boards when the Fox Merger was announced and the overwhelming response was "Thank God Fox can't screw up the X-Men anymore."Christ, I can't stand consoomers. Yeah, the 90's X-Men cartoon was awesome and definitely groundbreaking for American animation and pop culture, but the fucking MCU pretty much owes it's very existence to the success of the original Bryan Singer X-Men films. Does no one appreciate that? What the hell is wrong with my generation and the one that followed?
Now I'm really glad that I didn't see this film. Why even bother? The chance to finally cross over the MCU with the Singer X-Men and other non-Disney Marvel casts was given when Iger bought Fox and they had the chance to make use of it via "The Multiverse
There was a lot of resentment for Wolverine and Mystique focused films, characters getting shafted, never doing proper costumes, screwing up Dark Phoenix not once but twice.
Also Disney is bringing X-Men the animated series back with a new DisneyPlus series called X-Men 97 it's a direct continuation of the 90's series being made by the origin showrunners and as much as the original cast left.
X-Men ushered society into the current world of comic films and Marvel with Raimi's Spider-Man, but it's not beloved for a lot of X-Men fans it's like looking at an ex and wondering "What the fuck did I ever see in her?".
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2019
I dunno whats funnier, the Quarterpounder jumping on this shit in hopes them youtube bux 1st or Bobo and his posses of clowns falling fo this shit so fast.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
Bob is a big brain who knows all about social media and how it works.
The youtube algorithm boosts viewership and discovery of videos through some sort of wizardry that seems to be based on current trends and dice rolls. It creates suggestions based on your watch history, what you've like, commented on, current trends and more dice rolls. The only thing that I'm aware of that twitter's algorithm effects is the Explore section and the What's Happening tab. Twitter doesn't populate tweets for you based on what you like. There's probably some botting going on here but there's also a not-insignificant portion of people who are in to the Snyderverse and their autism helped get the Snyder cut released. Bob dismissal of all of this by saying "HUR DUR ALGO DID IT" is retarded.
I would be remiss in failing to point out that the manchild who has amassed almost 285 THOUSAND tweets says that nothing on twitter matters.
The youtube algorithm boosts viewership and discovery of videos through some sort of wizardry that seems to be based on current trends and dice rolls. It creates suggestions based on your watch history, what you've like, commented on, current trends and more dice rolls. The only thing that I'm aware of that twitter's algorithm effects is the Explore section and the What's Happening tab. Twitter doesn't populate tweets for you based on what you like. There's probably some botting going on here but there's also a not-insignificant portion of people who are in to the Snyderverse and their autism helped get the Snyder cut released. Bob dismissal of all of this by saying "HUR DUR ALGO DID IT" is retarded.
I would be remiss in failing to point out that the manchild who has amassed almost 285 THOUSAND tweets says that nothing on twitter matters.
This is getting to Ethan Ralph levels of hypocrisy. Bob stalks Peter Coffin's feed so he too harass him from behind a block and attack followers. He did the same to Aimee Terese. He does it to that Fox Green guy. He will do the same to Haz. He will continue to do so and when anyone gives him a taste of his own medicine he will cry to his followers to report that person to the cyber police.Dan Floss goes picking on Bobby re: MCU's exploitation of vfx artists.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2021
Is anyone but the Bob Braintrust even talking about this? Because I'm failing to see the use-case for a gripper that slowly decays and has to be replaced regularly with a specially-bred replacement (Because who just has tarantulas lying around?) Also, "Over 100 times its weight"? Spiders aren't heavy. At best that's around 20 pounds unless you're wiring up goliath birdeaters. For all that trouble I'll either get a stronger mechanical gripper or pick the damn thing up myself.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2017
Well I was going to put it in the Star Trek thread as a joke about Picard season 3's villains being borg spiders.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
That is much too good an idea for nu-Trek.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2018
- Highlight
- #98,239
Bob gets his nose rubbed in his own shit, doesn't appreciate having his own words thrown back at him, and threatens OP with doing the same thing to him.
tweeted pic
Escapist link
Archive link
Nothing in this world comes without assumed obligations. For a columnist, this usually involves newsworthy occurrences in one’s focal field needing to be commented upon. For a film columnist, this means that whatever else one wants to write about must frequently be regarded secondarily to film-industry goings-on too newsworthy to ignore.
So, then, here are my two cents on the matter of Roman Polanski.
Now, this particular story, being over two weeks old (and the “case” attendant to it being over 30 years old), I’m given to believe that no one needs any lengthy re-statement of the who’s and the what’s at play here – and if you do, Google is but a few clicks away. Suffice it to say; Roman Polanski is a film director of substantial reputation who, in 1977, plead guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 13 year-old girl. Allegedly, upon learning that the judge had decided to renege on a plea agreement and instead render a much harsher penalty, Polanski fled the U.S. for France (which has no legal obligation to extradite him back to America) to avoid sentencing. He remained there for 32 years, during which time he began a family and continued to direct films, winning a Best Director Oscar for “The Pianist” in 2002.
In 2008, his fugitive status once again re-entered headlines with the release of “Wanted & Desired,” a documentary that alleged misconduct and corruption by the judge and prosecutors at his original trial. On September 26 of this year, he attempted to enter Switzerland to accept a Lifetime Achievement award at the Zurich film festival, where he was arrested by Swiss police and is now awaiting extradition back to the United States.
Thus, on its face, what presents itself is a fairly unremarkable study in the peculiarities of prosecuting law across international borders. Polanski himself, of course, doesn’t wish to be imprisoned. The now-grown victim of the original incident says she has “forgiven” him and does not want that, either. Many of his friends, colleagues and fellow filmmakers have circulated petitions calling either for leniency or outright release. The Los Angeles prosecutors, unsurprisingly, disagree.
For those keeping track, that takes care of the only people whose opinions actually matter in this circumstance. Of course, that doesn’t mean that everybody else doesn’t get to chime in anyway. And that’s the problem with incidents like this – or, rather, the way our culture reacts to them: It almost immediately stops being about the actual people or the actual case and instead becomes about using them to fight “culture war” skirmishes by-proxy – especially when the criminal is famous and the crime is sexual.
In particular, the event was mana from heaven for American social conservative opinion-makers, who instantly seized on how perfectly the situation fit into their favorite rabble-rousing narrative: The clash between the “real” America (read: the people who agree with them) and the imaginary cabal of eeeeevil homosexuals, non-Christians and “liberals” who supposedly control Hollywood and The Media.
It couldn’t line up better for these folks: Showbiz Babylon defending a sex-crime fugitive. And since Polanski is wealthy and European, there’s a built-in undercurrent of class warfare: The Decadent Rich versus The Pious Peasantry, Secular Europe versus Moral America. Best of all, aside from the long-ago blockbusters “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” most of Polanski’s films are of the “artsy” type folks inclined this way tend to dislike to begin with, meaning less need for anyone to deal with seeing something they liked cast in a different light. (By the same token, most people who say they avoid Woody Allen movies “because of Soon-Yi” never liked his movies to begin with.)
Of course, no one has argued that the man isn’t guilty or that his crime was not heinous. At worst, his family and colleagues have offered that, to them, his friendship and contributions to art and culture mitigate the deeds of his past to varying degrees. But then, facts seldom get in the way of a good narrative.
As predictable as the right seizing on the story for cheap political points was the left diving in for the mirror-mirror version of the same – “the enemy of my enemy” and all that. The Huffington Post had at least two day-one Polanski articles up, not so much in defense of the man, but rather in pre-emptive offense against “the other side.” Ironically, this led to a mini-revolt among the site’s readers, many of whom agreed with “the enemy” in at least this one case. Hyperbole began to fight hyperbole: Raging against the anti-Hollywood moralists, producer Harvey Weinstein sounded like a live-action “South Park” routine when he retorted that “Hollywood has the best moral compass!”, while declaring “I didn’t sign the Polanski petitions!” became a badge of honor for celebrities and film industry folks angling for a heartland audience.
It’s all so cynical and tiresome. If there must be a battleground for such things… Why this man? Why this case?
At least in part, I think that Polanski fascinates because his existence stands as an open challenge to our neatly-composed sense of good and evil. To put it mildly, he’s the survivor of a life filled with horrors: His wife was murdered by the Manson Family, and he, himself, survived the Holocaust as a child. Such people are “supposed” to be poignant and humble, allowing the rest of us to feel emboldened by our ability to feel sympathy for them. They aren’t supposed to be jet-setters flaunting societal norms of morality and law. Men who commit the crime he plead guilty to are “supposed” to be sleazy creeps, their sub-humanism allowing the rest of us to feel comfortably separate from them. They aren’t supposed to be charismatic and greatly-talented artists.
This, I offer, is why the reaction runs to such extremes: “ABSOLUTION!,” cries one side; “OFF WITH HIS HEAD!,” cries the other. Make him a hero, make him a devil, make him anything that doesn’t force us to confront the duality of human nature.
But, damn it, enough is enough. These aren’t just game-pieces to be moved around in a proxy-war of political point-scoring. They’re people. Roman Polanski is a man. A man who has a family, who has suffered greatly, who has made great art, and who has also committed a terrible crime. There is also a woman, whose life was changed forever by his terrible crime. And there are Prosecutors, who’re still charged with seeing the case resolved one way or another. Those are the facts, these are the people actually affected, and everybody else at this point really ought to shut the fuck up about it. And that includes me, I don’t intend to write any more columns about this unless something hugely important occurs.
We forget, I think, that even when they involve famous people, crimes and trials aren’t movies, they aren’t big-scale morality plays staged for our enjoyment, and the players aren’t humanized stand-ins for broad social issues. The Polanski kerfuffle should not be about some imaginary war between Hollywood and Family Values, just like the O.J. Trial should never have been about the American racial divide.
For my part, I think it’s right and proper that he is brought back to the U.S. to face some form of sentencing: The law is the law. That said, I also think it’s right and proper for the sentence to be lenient under the circumstances – i.e. the original trial being fraught with corruption, the victim not wanting to participate in a new trial and the fact that the man is in his seventies and has 32 years of public life showing him not to be a further danger to anyone. But either way, one thing I’m sure of is that no matter how many people want to lay claim to this whole mess, no outcome will be a victory for any side of any battle, save the battle between Polanski and the prosecutors or, perhaps, his own demons.
I would ask, though, for the folks who want him to receive a much harsher treatment to consider the following: Having this turn in the story occur so late in his life means for sure – if there was ever much doubt – that Polanski’s crime will be just as immortal as his art; that no matter how many more great films he makes, everything written about him from now until his obituary and beyond will carry some mention of what he did in ’77. No one will ever know his name without also knowing his crime. So, then, excepting outright medieval torture… what sentence would you have a judge render that would be more punishing that that?
Bob Chipman is a film critic and independent filmmaker. If you’ve heard of him before, you have officially been spending way too much time on the internet.
I tried going through the guy's timeline(A) and I can't see anything that would've directly set him off on Bob. Either way, Bob was not a happy camper and tries to bring out that diabetic dick energy.
Before I do a single damn thing else I wanna point to a tweet @Positron captured YESTERDAY
Quote "Never hope that I'm wrong. You'll lose."
Lowest hanging fruit out of the way, Bob spends much of his tweet thread lamenting that he was wrong back then, he's changed, he's grown, he's educated now, as if this is somehow an excuse he would accept from anyone else and it should be forgiven and forgotten. What I find very interesting about this stance is that I can literally quote Bob Chipman, in the context of someone regretting their political decision and being welcomed back into the fold, saying "No forgiveness. Ever."
As you can see from the screen shot, this is still up. So why does Bob deserve forgiveness and others don't? Because he's Bob which I know will come as a shocker to all of you. Bob is allowed to change his mind on something that, as far as I'm aware, was incredibly obvious even back then. Let's be real here, Bob changed his "opinion" to fit the current narrative. In his column he writes:
Lemme break that down for you. Bob admits that Polanski raped a 13 year old girl but because those damn obsoletes, that would one day become the dreaded MAGAchuds, used it as a political movement that really sours the facts of the matter because fuck you.
One paragraph later, he follows:
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, and feel free to correct if I'm wrong as the alternative is kinda horrifying, but it seems like Bob kinda agrees with the family and colleagues.
Bob the tries to make heads or tails of why people were enraptured with Roman:
Quote "At least in part, I think that Polanski fascinates because his existence stands as an open challenge to our neatly-composed sense of good and evil". That sentence is fucking amazing. I would expect nothing less from Bob than this inane garbage of a paragraph. How do you know so little of the world that you make almost childlike assumptions? What I believe got and gets people riled up about this is that there are few better examples of Hollywood elitism than a prominent director who makes allegedly great movies getting arrested for raping a 13 year old girl, getting a plea bargain where almost all of the charges would be dropped in exchange for 90 days of psych eval and probation, fleeing when the judge allegedly (I say allegedly because I'm having a very hard time finding any evidence that the judge actually did what Polanski claims) reneged on the plea agreement going "fuck this guy", and has been living the high life ever since still directing.
But not to be out done he continues:
DAMN IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! LEAVE ROMAN ALONE! His family suffered greatly because he raped a child. He didn't endorse Chic-fil-A. He didn't donate to Trump. He didn't say that he didn't want highschool boys in his highschool daughter's locker room. He didn't shoot an elephant while paying for a safari. All of these innocuous examples I gave are actual things Bob has gotten upset about and wanted people removed from society over. Roman raped a child and fucking ran. Bob tries to cover all his bases with everyone involved before telling everyone else to "shut the fuck up about it" while doing the very thing he told other people not to do. He then magnanimously, as he is a philosopher king, says that he will not write about this anymore "unless something hugely important occurs" which fucking LOL. Way to accidently admit that you are no better than all the other assholes reporting on this, moron.
The screen shot provided by Detective Spooky were the last two paragraphs of the column. Bod asks a question as his send off that I believe I have an answer to.
A bullet to the head. Just kill him. No jokes. No hyperbole. End the pedophile's life. If I go out and rape a child after inventing a working cold fusion reactor do I get a molestation mulligan because of my contributions to mankind? What if I flee the country for 50 years and invent robo-waifus? Does that erase what happened? The lines of justice of forgiveness are sometimes blurry and I'm not the best one to try to figure it out. I do know that Roman's only contribution is making a bunch of movies that I've never seen and besides maybe Chinatown and/or Rosemary's Baby I have no desire to. I also know that if my dumbass had did anything nearly as prolific as Roman sexually assaulting a child that I would not be handled with such kid gloves. Bob has time and time again shown little care for the children involved in abuse cases for almost the same reasons as he listed 13 years ago. The right does not want their kids getting fucked with and because of that Bob will take the other side and try to put a spin on it. I wanna add that there are people on the left who feel the same way but the second they voice their concerns Bob will immediately scoff and say that they were always on the right. The Florida anti-grooming bill had Bob either retweeting or directly saying that the real reason conservitards were doing this is so that they could groom and molest kids. Today he has the excuse of hiding behind his angels. 13 years ago he hid behind Roman being a hollocaust survivor and making some good flicks. Yeah he said that he's guilty and should be punished but he finished his column asking hasn't Roman suffered enough. As far as I can tell there will always be an excuse Bob will have for his perceived betters doing heinous shit. If something happens and being pro-troon is now a conservative value it will be a matter of weeks before Bob flip flops on all of them.
Fun fact! Polanski directed a movie that's set to release this November called The Palace. He's still working and stimulating the economy! I guess all is forgiven now.
EDIT:
I'm a retard and made a few grammatical errors and at one point left out an entire point for my argument. I've made those changes.
tweeted pic
Escapist link
Archive link
Might as Well Get to the Polanski Thing
By BOB CHIPMAN October 16, 2009Nothing in this world comes without assumed obligations. For a columnist, this usually involves newsworthy occurrences in one’s focal field needing to be commented upon. For a film columnist, this means that whatever else one wants to write about must frequently be regarded secondarily to film-industry goings-on too newsworthy to ignore.
So, then, here are my two cents on the matter of Roman Polanski.
Now, this particular story, being over two weeks old (and the “case” attendant to it being over 30 years old), I’m given to believe that no one needs any lengthy re-statement of the who’s and the what’s at play here – and if you do, Google is but a few clicks away. Suffice it to say; Roman Polanski is a film director of substantial reputation who, in 1977, plead guilty to “unlawful sexual intercourse” with a 13 year-old girl. Allegedly, upon learning that the judge had decided to renege on a plea agreement and instead render a much harsher penalty, Polanski fled the U.S. for France (which has no legal obligation to extradite him back to America) to avoid sentencing. He remained there for 32 years, during which time he began a family and continued to direct films, winning a Best Director Oscar for “The Pianist” in 2002.
In 2008, his fugitive status once again re-entered headlines with the release of “Wanted & Desired,” a documentary that alleged misconduct and corruption by the judge and prosecutors at his original trial. On September 26 of this year, he attempted to enter Switzerland to accept a Lifetime Achievement award at the Zurich film festival, where he was arrested by Swiss police and is now awaiting extradition back to the United States.
Thus, on its face, what presents itself is a fairly unremarkable study in the peculiarities of prosecuting law across international borders. Polanski himself, of course, doesn’t wish to be imprisoned. The now-grown victim of the original incident says she has “forgiven” him and does not want that, either. Many of his friends, colleagues and fellow filmmakers have circulated petitions calling either for leniency or outright release. The Los Angeles prosecutors, unsurprisingly, disagree.
For those keeping track, that takes care of the only people whose opinions actually matter in this circumstance. Of course, that doesn’t mean that everybody else doesn’t get to chime in anyway. And that’s the problem with incidents like this – or, rather, the way our culture reacts to them: It almost immediately stops being about the actual people or the actual case and instead becomes about using them to fight “culture war” skirmishes by-proxy – especially when the criminal is famous and the crime is sexual.
In particular, the event was mana from heaven for American social conservative opinion-makers, who instantly seized on how perfectly the situation fit into their favorite rabble-rousing narrative: The clash between the “real” America (read: the people who agree with them) and the imaginary cabal of eeeeevil homosexuals, non-Christians and “liberals” who supposedly control Hollywood and The Media.
It couldn’t line up better for these folks: Showbiz Babylon defending a sex-crime fugitive. And since Polanski is wealthy and European, there’s a built-in undercurrent of class warfare: The Decadent Rich versus The Pious Peasantry, Secular Europe versus Moral America. Best of all, aside from the long-ago blockbusters “Chinatown” and “Rosemary’s Baby,” most of Polanski’s films are of the “artsy” type folks inclined this way tend to dislike to begin with, meaning less need for anyone to deal with seeing something they liked cast in a different light. (By the same token, most people who say they avoid Woody Allen movies “because of Soon-Yi” never liked his movies to begin with.)
Of course, no one has argued that the man isn’t guilty or that his crime was not heinous. At worst, his family and colleagues have offered that, to them, his friendship and contributions to art and culture mitigate the deeds of his past to varying degrees. But then, facts seldom get in the way of a good narrative.
As predictable as the right seizing on the story for cheap political points was the left diving in for the mirror-mirror version of the same – “the enemy of my enemy” and all that. The Huffington Post had at least two day-one Polanski articles up, not so much in defense of the man, but rather in pre-emptive offense against “the other side.” Ironically, this led to a mini-revolt among the site’s readers, many of whom agreed with “the enemy” in at least this one case. Hyperbole began to fight hyperbole: Raging against the anti-Hollywood moralists, producer Harvey Weinstein sounded like a live-action “South Park” routine when he retorted that “Hollywood has the best moral compass!”, while declaring “I didn’t sign the Polanski petitions!” became a badge of honor for celebrities and film industry folks angling for a heartland audience.
It’s all so cynical and tiresome. If there must be a battleground for such things… Why this man? Why this case?
At least in part, I think that Polanski fascinates because his existence stands as an open challenge to our neatly-composed sense of good and evil. To put it mildly, he’s the survivor of a life filled with horrors: His wife was murdered by the Manson Family, and he, himself, survived the Holocaust as a child. Such people are “supposed” to be poignant and humble, allowing the rest of us to feel emboldened by our ability to feel sympathy for them. They aren’t supposed to be jet-setters flaunting societal norms of morality and law. Men who commit the crime he plead guilty to are “supposed” to be sleazy creeps, their sub-humanism allowing the rest of us to feel comfortably separate from them. They aren’t supposed to be charismatic and greatly-talented artists.
This, I offer, is why the reaction runs to such extremes: “ABSOLUTION!,” cries one side; “OFF WITH HIS HEAD!,” cries the other. Make him a hero, make him a devil, make him anything that doesn’t force us to confront the duality of human nature.
But, damn it, enough is enough. These aren’t just game-pieces to be moved around in a proxy-war of political point-scoring. They’re people. Roman Polanski is a man. A man who has a family, who has suffered greatly, who has made great art, and who has also committed a terrible crime. There is also a woman, whose life was changed forever by his terrible crime. And there are Prosecutors, who’re still charged with seeing the case resolved one way or another. Those are the facts, these are the people actually affected, and everybody else at this point really ought to shut the fuck up about it. And that includes me, I don’t intend to write any more columns about this unless something hugely important occurs.
We forget, I think, that even when they involve famous people, crimes and trials aren’t movies, they aren’t big-scale morality plays staged for our enjoyment, and the players aren’t humanized stand-ins for broad social issues. The Polanski kerfuffle should not be about some imaginary war between Hollywood and Family Values, just like the O.J. Trial should never have been about the American racial divide.
For my part, I think it’s right and proper that he is brought back to the U.S. to face some form of sentencing: The law is the law. That said, I also think it’s right and proper for the sentence to be lenient under the circumstances – i.e. the original trial being fraught with corruption, the victim not wanting to participate in a new trial and the fact that the man is in his seventies and has 32 years of public life showing him not to be a further danger to anyone. But either way, one thing I’m sure of is that no matter how many people want to lay claim to this whole mess, no outcome will be a victory for any side of any battle, save the battle between Polanski and the prosecutors or, perhaps, his own demons.
I would ask, though, for the folks who want him to receive a much harsher treatment to consider the following: Having this turn in the story occur so late in his life means for sure – if there was ever much doubt – that Polanski’s crime will be just as immortal as his art; that no matter how many more great films he makes, everything written about him from now until his obituary and beyond will carry some mention of what he did in ’77. No one will ever know his name without also knowing his crime. So, then, excepting outright medieval torture… what sentence would you have a judge render that would be more punishing that that?
Bob Chipman is a film critic and independent filmmaker. If you’ve heard of him before, you have officially been spending way too much time on the internet.
Before I do a single damn thing else I wanna point to a tweet @Positron captured YESTERDAY
Quote "Never hope that I'm wrong. You'll lose."
Lowest hanging fruit out of the way, Bob spends much of his tweet thread lamenting that he was wrong back then, he's changed, he's grown, he's educated now, as if this is somehow an excuse he would accept from anyone else and it should be forgiven and forgotten. What I find very interesting about this stance is that I can literally quote Bob Chipman, in the context of someone regretting their political decision and being welcomed back into the fold, saying "No forgiveness. Ever."
As you can see from the screen shot, this is still up. So why does Bob deserve forgiveness and others don't? Because he's Bob which I know will come as a shocker to all of you. Bob is allowed to change his mind on something that, as far as I'm aware, was incredibly obvious even back then. Let's be real here, Bob changed his "opinion" to fit the current narrative. In his column he writes:
Lemme break that down for you. Bob admits that Polanski raped a 13 year old girl but because those damn obsoletes, that would one day become the dreaded MAGAchuds, used it as a political movement that really sours the facts of the matter because fuck you.
One paragraph later, he follows:
Perhaps I'm reading this wrong, and feel free to correct if I'm wrong as the alternative is kinda horrifying, but it seems like Bob kinda agrees with the family and colleagues.
Bob the tries to make heads or tails of why people were enraptured with Roman:
Quote "At least in part, I think that Polanski fascinates because his existence stands as an open challenge to our neatly-composed sense of good and evil". That sentence is fucking amazing. I would expect nothing less from Bob than this inane garbage of a paragraph. How do you know so little of the world that you make almost childlike assumptions? What I believe got and gets people riled up about this is that there are few better examples of Hollywood elitism than a prominent director who makes allegedly great movies getting arrested for raping a 13 year old girl, getting a plea bargain where almost all of the charges would be dropped in exchange for 90 days of psych eval and probation, fleeing when the judge allegedly (I say allegedly because I'm having a very hard time finding any evidence that the judge actually did what Polanski claims) reneged on the plea agreement going "fuck this guy", and has been living the high life ever since still directing.
But not to be out done he continues:
DAMN IT! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! LEAVE ROMAN ALONE! His family suffered greatly because he raped a child. He didn't endorse Chic-fil-A. He didn't donate to Trump. He didn't say that he didn't want highschool boys in his highschool daughter's locker room. He didn't shoot an elephant while paying for a safari. All of these innocuous examples I gave are actual things Bob has gotten upset about and wanted people removed from society over. Roman raped a child and fucking ran. Bob tries to cover all his bases with everyone involved before telling everyone else to "shut the fuck up about it" while doing the very thing he told other people not to do. He then magnanimously, as he is a philosopher king, says that he will not write about this anymore "unless something hugely important occurs" which fucking LOL. Way to accidently admit that you are no better than all the other assholes reporting on this, moron.
The screen shot provided by Detective Spooky were the last two paragraphs of the column. Bod asks a question as his send off that I believe I have an answer to.
A bullet to the head. Just kill him. No jokes. No hyperbole. End the pedophile's life. If I go out and rape a child after inventing a working cold fusion reactor do I get a molestation mulligan because of my contributions to mankind? What if I flee the country for 50 years and invent robo-waifus? Does that erase what happened? The lines of justice of forgiveness are sometimes blurry and I'm not the best one to try to figure it out. I do know that Roman's only contribution is making a bunch of movies that I've never seen and besides maybe Chinatown and/or Rosemary's Baby I have no desire to. I also know that if my dumbass had did anything nearly as prolific as Roman sexually assaulting a child that I would not be handled with such kid gloves. Bob has time and time again shown little care for the children involved in abuse cases for almost the same reasons as he listed 13 years ago. The right does not want their kids getting fucked with and because of that Bob will take the other side and try to put a spin on it. I wanna add that there are people on the left who feel the same way but the second they voice their concerns Bob will immediately scoff and say that they were always on the right. The Florida anti-grooming bill had Bob either retweeting or directly saying that the real reason conservitards were doing this is so that they could groom and molest kids. Today he has the excuse of hiding behind his angels. 13 years ago he hid behind Roman being a hollocaust survivor and making some good flicks. Yeah he said that he's guilty and should be punished but he finished his column asking hasn't Roman suffered enough. As far as I can tell there will always be an excuse Bob will have for his perceived betters doing heinous shit. If something happens and being pro-troon is now a conservative value it will be a matter of weeks before Bob flip flops on all of them.
Fun fact! Polanski directed a movie that's set to release this November called The Palace. He's still working and stimulating the economy! I guess all is forgiven now.
EDIT:
I'm a retard and made a few grammatical errors and at one point left out an entire point for my argument. I've made those changes.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
@Ralph Barnhardt Wow, that is an amazing rake Bob stepped on. Of course, of course anything Bob wrote so long ago isn't proper fodder to use to criticize him ... a rule that he absolutely would not apply to anyone he dislikes.
Fun fact: those idiot Believers and right wing Mayoughoulen have wanted to see Polanski's ass in prison for the last 45 years. Absolutely nothing has changed since 2009 or even since his initial flight from sentencing that should have realistically changed anyone's view of the man, save what the media-entertainment complex currently has a hair across its ass about.
Fun fact: those idiot Believers and right wing Mayoughoulen have wanted to see Polanski's ass in prison for the last 45 years. Absolutely nothing has changed since 2009 or even since his initial flight from sentencing that should have realistically changed anyone's view of the man, save what the media-entertainment complex currently has a hair across its ass about.
Last edited:
- Status