-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Matt Damon, Russell Crowe Allegedly Helped Prove Gaffers Only Read Thread Titles
- Thread starter PsychoSoldier
- Start date
Lol you changed your avatar.
This thread is an amazing list of people who do not have any reading comprehension or who are waiting for any thinly veiled excuse to call anyone a racist or milkshake whatever.
Discotheque
Banned
Seems like a lot of people are jumping to conclusions based on this poorly worded article
Whether or not he was complicit with the weinstein scandal is up in the air, but this article sure as hell does nothing to confirm that
I don't doubt that a lot of actors and actresses and producers and directors let this go unmentioned though either in their own self interests or out of fear of being reprimanded by one of the more powerful ppl in Hollywood
0 to 100 with the milkshake duck stuff in here though lol
Whether or not he was complicit with the weinstein scandal is up in the air, but this article sure as hell does nothing to confirm that
I don't doubt that a lot of actors and actresses and producers and directors let this go unmentioned though either in their own self interests or out of fear of being reprimanded by one of the more powerful ppl in Hollywood
0 to 100 with the milkshake duck stuff in here though lol
LegendofDragoonLives
Member
Impressive list of people who have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old in this topic on top of being rather spiteful of both of these actors lol
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
lol this thread is a winner.
Just as quick people are to deify their idols, they seem even quicker to dig their graves on unsubstantiated accusations.
whitemex88
Member
This is the way to do it
Frozenprince
Banned
Everybody in Hollywood dirty.
Long as Idris, Denzel and Papa Hanks are clean I'm okay.
Long as Idris, Denzel and Papa Hanks are clean I'm okay.
A lot of us have good reading comprehension. We also know Hollywood. Damon and Crowe took the extra step to vouch for Lombardo during a story about him securing women for Weinstein, a story that was also about a woman being paid off for her unwanted sexual encounter. They basically vouched for Weinstein's Italian pimp and helped kill off a story. No one is saying they are complicit in ehat Weinstein did. This is a Hollywood that claps child molesters. A Hollywood that has known about Weinstein for decades but now wants to pearl clutch because the truth is out there. Lisa Bloom came out so strong against Cosby and even Usher in some herpes case but only resigned from Weinstein defense after it became known there was no shot he had from containing this.
Monkeyball
Banned
Why are people using that incredibly stupid term milkshake duck? 😡
Keanu is the only one I care about.
...That's not what the article actually says though. She tries to imply it (and is flat out dishonest in what she is implying) but doesn't say it because she has no actual proof about it in any way. In fact, as the mod edits show - they were called to ask if Lombardo did work at Miramax, which he did, because he had done some work for movies Damon and Crowe were on. But that's left out of her clickbait / dishonest story.
You didn't even read the mod edits either!
I did read. Read my post again. I never said Lombardo is the one who paid off the woman. Also, them vouching for Lombardo was a factor in not moving aheas with the article. So make of that what you will.
They were famous people that came through in hour 11 to stop an article from being published... They used their celebrity status to literally censor the press.
If there was nothing to the allegations... Why did the weinstein company work so hard to have it supressed
Read between the lines
But they did go ahead with the article, just not with anything to do with sexual harassment/assault because they didn't have enough proof. The editor moved it to a culture topic and dropped the sexual assault stuff.
It really looks like the author was unable to secure enough evidence to run the report as she intended and the editor made it something else. The author states that four years later she didn't run the article because she didn't have proof of the pay off, Miramax was no longer owned by Disney and Lombardo was no lo anger employed there. If she really had damning evidence, she could have run the article she originally intended.
MickeyPhree
Member
I'll always shake my head at people looking up to celebrities.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
The only thing Damon and Crowe did was verify that the Lombardo guy did actual press work on their films. It doesn't even matter what the company's motives were in asking Damon or Crowe to do this if those two verified they worked with him truthfully. Reading between the lines any further is straight making stuff up to fit your agenda at this point.
I only look up to the ones I never hear about. That's how I know they have a squeaky clean image.
Because they were proving the initial premise of the article incorrect - that Lombardo was only hired for the escort part and not the film part. Assuming the allegation is correct, the issue is that Lombardo did enough "film" work that anyone not named Weinstein would assume he did studio head type work.
Weinstein != Damon or Crowe. The dishonesty of the author is in trying to imply that Damon and Crowe were in the complete know of what Lombardo did, rather than just being asked to provide background info on Lombardo. If someone calls me asking if one of my coworkers actually does work, and they do, I am gonna tell them that they do work. Notice she doesn't mention that Crowe or Damon know anything about the allegations or anything else besides "Does Lombardo work at Miramax Italy?"
The article WAS PUBLISHED.
Nothing killed the article. Her editor at the NYT thought this story was a nothingburger and did not pursue it.
She does not appear to have written any article about the woman in London, and that story appears to have nothing to do with the article she submitted which was purely about Lombardo being fired.
Also, she is being intentionally misleading by not linking to her original article which has really baseline quotes from Damon and Crowe about what their interaction with Lombardo was. It's also extremely unhelpful that right before she name-drops two A-list actors she mentions an unrelated allegation about a woman being paid off. It's also a website she owns.
She wanted to write a piece about Lombardo not doing actual work for Miramax. She was provided with contradictory first-hand accounts of people who experienced him doing said work and it quashed her angle.
She also owns the website that she is now writing for, and I'll let people draw their own conclusions about why she is
1) Not linking to her original NYT story
2) Name dropping an unrelated sexual abuse allegation right before name-dropping to A-list actors with the dubious "Weinstein pressured me directly" instead of the pretty germane quotes they gave on the record.
3) Conflating two different stories, one of which is far more salacious
4) Going after the times when her very own article points to no one willing to go on record about Weinstein and two people who shot down her reporting on Lombardo.
Of course the Times didn't publisher her story. She *still* can't corroborate it even without an editor trying to "silence" the story.
Geno Breaker
Banned
Can anyone summarize the whole situation? I have no idea what's going on other than the Weinstein was fired yesterday and there was some sexual assault.
Honestly her article wasn't great and full of innuendo...but from what we know it was common knowledge what kind of person Harvey was among the Hollywood elite.. They knew who they were putting their reputations on the line for.
I kind of did. Remember this exchange with Effie Brown, and his glib statement that diversity is for people in front of the cameras (for show) and not behind the cameras (the "real" work).
Monkeyball
Banned
Indeed. If those people turn out to be shitheads like lots of people, fools on you.
The article WAS PUBLISHED! She had an angle which was
1) This guy was a pimp did no work.
They provided first-hand accounts of him working. Her editor (rightly) told her she couldn't run a story with no evidence and first-hand accounts that refuted her premise.
You don't get to write the story you think is true. You follow the facts and write the story that you uncover.
In this case, she probably had a beat on an unrelated cover-up of Weinstein that she couldn't get to go on the record. So, she didn't have enough to do anything other than prove Weinstein paid someone and they signed a gag order. Which is a nothing burger and unrelated to anything Damon or Crowe spoke to her about.
It sounds like she wanted to publish a story with no evidence because she *still* doesn't have receipts and she owns the website that she writes on. So, if someone killed this in the past, why isn't she giving up the goods now.
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
So, they should have lied and said they didn't work with someone they worked with? Or would a "no comment" have pleased you instead of making you even more suspicious? Did you want them to straight up lie about the question because of the Weinstein rumors that had been going around? Jesus... You're being demanding and I don't really get what you expected out of the questions they were asked.
And did they know they were putting their reputations on the line by answering a question about someone they worked with in Italy? The question stated in the article wouldn't lead anyone to believe that. Hell, it didn't even mention Weinstein or the author's suspicions to Lombardo's other roles performed at Weinstein's request. Why didn't the author ask them these questions?
Honestly, have you ever thought about writing for a tabloid? You'd even make a great fit writing at this author's site. Your "read between the lines" game is strong.
1. There was once a man named Lombardo who headed up Miramax Italy.
2. A reporter thought his only job was to get hookers for Weinstein.
3. A couple famous actors told her that Lombardo actually worked on movies.
4. The paper she worked for said she couldn't say that Lombardo only procured hookers.
It's one thing to have knowledge of something, it's another thing to have evidence to prove it. You need that if you're going to run a story to take down a dirtbag. A lot of the rest of her piece uses vague terminology and admits she's still not full sure what happened, feels more like she's venting that she was close to getting this out there a decade + ago and a lot of women would have been saved from being used by Weinstein if she was able to get the dots connected better. But even she admits in her piece here she was "green."
Thread title is misleading, BTW. That's not why they were calling her though they were probably being used by Weinstein to vouch for Lombardo. Whether or not they knew the entire story as to why they were vouching is, again, vague and there's no evidence to it and is also an odd conclusion to draw by the OP because the writer herself doesn't even draw that conclusion other than that their calls were adding pressure about her Lombardo story not gaining traction.
Thread title is misleading, BTW. That's not why they were calling her though they were probably being used by Weinstein to vouch for Lombardo. Whether or not they knew the entire story as to why they were vouching is, again, vague and there's no evidence to it and is also an odd conclusion to draw by the OP because the writer herself doesn't even draw that conclusion other than that their calls were adding pressure about her Lombardo story not gaining traction.
This I think is a fair point. I mean, the internet has pretty well known that Weinstein is a creep for a while. So, it's pretty shady that Hollywood people looked the other way for a power player who could make pet-project indie movies happen. Weinstein was great at getting award noms, and people very likely looked the other way, or didn't ask questions they didn't want to know the answers to.
And I think in some regard anyone who associated with him has some stink on them as a result of that. Same thing with the Roman Polanski thing and the supposed sexual assault of child actors being fairly typical. Hollywood has lots of noise around lots of people, and it's a huge issue.
But in this case, the writer is being intentionally misleading to try and get clicks because there is a far cry from Damon and Crowe pressuring the NYT into killing a legit beat on uncovering Weinstein as the monster he was.. and then giving some on the record quotes disproving a story premise of the head of Miramax Italy.
I think she probably *wants* to think she was going to win a pulitzer 13 years ago and the hollywood system ran over her with a truck and quashed her investigation. But, given the piece she wrote today it seems like she just found smoke with no evidence and was likely no further than internet sleuths who read rumors about him and Blake Lively from a decade ago.
I heard Denzel likes pineapple on pizza, Hanks doesnt wash his butt and Idris gets his steak well done.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
And talked shit about Obama.
I don't think I've come across a single Massachusetts native that wasn't a Pats fan. That feels like one of those "you're born a fan, whether you like it or not" kind of things.
Hoho for breakfast
Member
Ugh. Hopefully no shady shit was going on.
Who's next? Keanu Reeves? Mr Rogers??
Who's next? Keanu Reeves? Mr Rogers??
Vegetable Lasagna
Member
At least he isn't a Steeler's fan.
This is the correct way to live!
Huh they did? What source confirms this, I haven't heard about this yet.
Black Republican
Member
all our fav celebs/musicians suck 
Robdraggoo
Member
Can someone change the thread title to something thats not complete bullshit.
-Pyromaniac-
Member
this is what I took from the story too...
the reactions in this thread don't line up with my comprehension of this.
Shadowhelper
Banned
Come on dude.
Criticising Obama for being too center, not left enough, and for being ineffective for the first term, how is that remotely the same to being a proxy Trump fan through the Patriots?
Damon is a pretty hardcore lefty.
Apparently a lot of people knew Harvey Weinstein raped Rose McGowan. He also settled a ton of lawsuits. Apparently quite a lot of people knew. Doesn't mean Damon did. It's pretty easy to see how that sort of information wouldn't make it to Damon.
But enough people knew thats for sure. No one said anything except for a few journalists who were perhaps given the story by his brother Bob Weinstein.
It's easy to see how guys like Trump can become president with fools like this. Ready to take anything at face value, totally controlled by raw emotion.
JasonUresti
Member
Correctomundo. People have a very easy time believing stories that fit their preconceived notions or cherished personal stances.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
They vouched that he did the work that he did and organised what he organised. But please, continue drumming up hatred for them.