Reporters. Real ones–not bloggers.

«Behind this door is a room full of reporters. Real ones–not bloggers.»
Tony Stark, Spiderman – Homecoming

One of the best lines of the film and Tony Stark. And that says a lot because it’s the Tony Stark. I realised in retrospect that bloggers were enraged with Marvel about this line. I wasn’t. I absolutely loved it. It’s true. I have a blog, I blog…. I do it for me, to put my thoughts out there. But I -in a way- agreed with it.

Where did I disagree with it?

The problem as I see it is that «real journalists» are becoming bloggers. All the opinion pieces point to the fact they are not journalists. They are bloggers. They share their -more often than not, biased- opinions. But they think they are journalists.

Under the scope of «hey! it’s my personal opinion» they can spead their uninformed opinions as facts. The more readers they have, the more their opinion is taken as truth. It happens with both bloggers and journalists, both in social media and media.

«Code of Ethics» or the «Canons of Journalism»

While various existing codes have some differences, most share common elements including the principles of truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability as these apply to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.

Like many broader ethical systems, journalism ethics include the principle of «limitation of harm.» This often involves the withholding of certain details from reports such as the names of minor children, crime victims’ names or information not materially related to particular news reports release of which might, for example, harm someone’s reputation.

Some journalistic codes of ethics, notably the European ones,also include a concern with discriminatory references in news based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and physical or mental disabilities. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe approved in 1993 Resolution 1003 on the Ethics of Journalism which recommends journalists to respect the presumption of innocence, in particular in cases that are still sub judice.

 

Journalism is guided by five important values.

Five Core Principles of Journalism

1. Truth and Accuracy

Journalists cannot always guarantee ‘truth’, but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism. We should always strive for accuracy, give all the relevant facts we have and ensure that they have been checked. When we cannot corroborate information we should say so.

2. Independence

Journalists must be independent voices; we should not act, formally or informally, on behalf of special interests whether political, corporate or cultural. We should declare to our editors – or the audience – any of our political affiliations, financial arrangements or other personal information that might constitute a conflict of interest.

3. Fairness and Impartiality

Most stories have at least two sides. While there is no obligation to present every side in every piece, stories should be balanced and add context. Objectivity is not always possible, and may not always be desirable (in the face for example of brutality or inhumanity), but impartial reporting builds trust and confidence.

4. Humanity

Journalists should do no harm. What we publish or broadcast may be hurtful, but we should be aware of the impact of our words and images on the lives of others. (A/N: even if we talk about the life of a rich, white man)

5. Accountability

A sure sign of professionalism and responsible journalism is the ability to hold ourselves accountable. When we commit errors we must correct them and our expressions of regret must be sincere not cynical. We listen to the concerns of our audience. We may not change what readers write or say but we will always provide remedies when we are unfair.

The Depp/Heard scandal last year and the way it was dealt by media was a huge slap to all five core Principles of Journalism. And journalists/media are unwilling to take responsibility for it. The values have been disappeared under the pretence of «freedom of speech», and if a reader brings up the matter of slander, they will reply with something along the lines of «hey! it’s satire, not slander». Thing is they have taken all their values and thrown them to the rubbish bin.

And if we talk about bloggers the situation is far worse. The need to have their opinion be the truth is outstanding. Their misinformed, totally biased opinion becomes truth™; it becomes reality. And as their truth™ spreads around, more and more people embrace it (because it helps keep the bias alive) the real truth is hidden because it doesn’t fit a certain narration. The real truth is harmful because it comes in contrast to what they present as true so they are going to hide it under the carpet all the while guilt-tripping those who want to present facts. When facts don’t support their truth they delete them as unworthy.

There is the self-centreness and entitlement in the bloggers’ stance. They don’t like a fictional movie character, they’ll write an article about why everyone doesn’t like the specific character, all the while ignoring those who like said character as unimportant. They take half the entertainment away with their bias and prejudice.

After a while though, they cannot seperate fictional and real. Hating a real person, attempting to delete their professional and personal existence using their manifactured truth™ while guilt-tripping others is dangerous and akin to propaganda. The fact they disregard facts to support their opinion means there’s nothing naive or innocent about their behaviour. They know facts, they choose to ignore them because they don’t fit with their narration.

«And we learned about the critical importance of propaganda, the deliberate misinforming of the public in order to sway opinions en masse and achieve popular support (or at least the appearance of it).»

 

Hannah Arendt wrote in her 1951 Origins of Totalitarianism, going on to elaborate that this “mixture of gullibility and cynicism… is prevalent in all ranks of totalitarian movements»:

«The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.»

Gaslighting:

«The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end – is being destroyed.»

In the Depp case, you are going to be told he’s a rich, middle aged, white man aka privileged and his victim is a young (/er than him) bisexual, not as rich woman aka not as privileged as he is. So he’s the bad guy by default, you know? You just have to believe her because of…. reasons. You can’t question the lies because… you are «victim blaming», because you are an «abuse apologist». So her lies are not to be questioned. Because in their mind Heard is the face of a minority; bisexual women.

I don’t care if the above supports a minority (actually it just supports one person who’s in the habit of lying) when the tactics used are the same as Totalitarianism.

There are certain values that make society instead of chaos.

Innocent until proven guilty, is one of them. Lies are to be questioned, is another.

If you cannot support your opinion without generalisations and lies, but still try to force it as truth (by verbally abusing others) you are dangerous. And I don’t give a damn if you support a minority. Your end doesn’t justify your means.

So yes, I’m with Tony Stark there, and I hope journalists will soon realise they hurt their profession.
Their personal opinion should be based on facts and objectivity. It’s why I pay to read them.

And I will repeat it;

these methods are dangerous.
Spreading lies to support an opinion is dangerous.
Showing disregard about the truth is dangerous.

Bloggers and journalists’ self importance becomes dangerous.

I’m afraid of the narcissism of politicians.
I cannot worry about the narcissim of another Estate that impacts society.

 

  1. The Origins of Totalitarianism [x]
  2. Journalism ethics and standards
  3. Five Principles of Journalism
Advertisements

Enlightenment versus Social Media

We are the generations of lazy liars.

Social media generations are lazy liars.

And I say this with absolute knowledge of the words I use.

People will say things and as long as is the ‘right’ thing to say at a given time, people will be applaud and celebrated for fighting the good cause.

The reason why I use Johnny Depp as an example is because I know the case really well; I can recognise the lies and use sources to prove they are lies. However, and that’s the saddest part isn’t it? however, lies don’t start and end with Johnny Depp. They are everywhere around us; coming from all sides, the good and the bad.

You’ll be surprised how many lies people say in the name of the ‘good‘. I used to be naive and believe it was due to ignorance and the need to support an abuse victim. That is not the case.

If someone believes Amber Heard was a victim of domestic violence or abuse at the hands of Johnny Depp because of x evidence they found on the internet eg. bruised face photos and the video «released» (sic) on TMZ, my reply is OK. I may explain how none of this alone proves he was violent or abusive towards her, but it’s an opinion based on facts. The photos exist. The video exists.

And even if they don’t want to see the other side, again, I’m -almost- OK with their decision to err on the side of the alleged victim. As long as they don’t give a damn they may err at the expense of an innocent man possibly falsely and maliciously accused of domestic violence there’s nothing for me to say. It’s their choice.

You know? What can I do?

But here come the lies. So many of them shared in social media and media alike. With no intention of taking them back even when they are called out for those. If they were honest mistakes, they would take them back since they are offered all kinds of proof that what they say it’s a lie. They never do.

It’s easy to say «I was wrongly informed. What I wrote was false and I apologise» even if they still continue to have the same opinion.

They never do.

They take their cue from media, so who can blame them?

Everybody should blame them.

Just because inside their own head they do something in the name of good (if even that, not so certain any more; sometimes I think the idea behind the lies is to get more followers; good cause —-> lies to support it —–> followers) doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good.

The whole «I was a Johnny Depp fan until he abused his wife so now I hate him» doesn’t give anyone a badge of honour if they support their hate with lies.

The whole «Women get abused and a. police doesn’t care, b. society doesn’t care, c. plus d or whatever» doesn’t make the lies anything more than lies.

Lies are still lies.

My intention isn’t to call specific people out for their lies; I use as an example but I will cover their name.

Basically:

Step one:

Bring Johnny Depp’s name into a story that has nothing to do with him.

Why? Come on, you’re intelligent people! Because his name sells, either as a loved actor, or the scapegoat of the decade.

  1. L’Oreal fired their model because of her post in facebook.
  2. Dior on the other hand, uses Johnny Depp, among other stars, in their LoveChain Campaign.

1

χιλ. means thousands (it’s greek)

My very personal opinion is that in this demonised «western world of racism» people of all races, sexual orientation, genders etc have the right to speak, to protest, to demonstrate, to fight for their rights. Europe had its Enlightenment some centuries ago.

I don’t know if the non white, non western world is less racist though and more tolerant of their minorities (which arguably is white people). Now, don’t get me wrong, we have our problems, our racists, our bigots, our haters, but «all white people» are not born in UK or USA. People in Europe are racists towards white people of different ethnicities; half of Christian Europe has been under the Ottoman Empire for centuries until World War I. People in Asia may have a different take in regards to racism as well. So this Anglo-American centric way of seeing things is insulting to the rest of us, non Anglo-Americans, who haven’t conquered the world in over a millennium, but have been conquered by people of a different non-Christian religion (that Americans would most probably describe as non-white but they themselves very wisely use their ethnicity instead of what colour their skin has) or were occupied by the Nazis in World War II. So, no my friend, not «all white people are racists» but rather «all people are racists» or more wisely «some people from all races and ethnicities may be racists».

All people who will find themselves on a state of power/control over others have the capacity of using their power to oppress others.

Whether you agree with me or with her, it doesn’t matter. The thing is she wrote that post.

So, why would anyone put these two cases together? Let me think, likes and retweets and more followers?

Do you know what hasn’t happened? Johnny Depp was never found guilty of domestic violence. (I have a great number of posts about the subject so I won’t be repeating myself.)

So the blogger who made the post got some replies informing them of facts that explain that not one of us knows if Johnny Depp actually abused Amber Heard (as opposed to the posts in facebook that actually happened). What does blogger do?

Step two: lie.

2

No, I wouldn’t think of calling them an idiot, they’ re just a liar.

Lie #1.

Depp was never found innocent. He settled and used his money to evade the law.

Don’t know where blogger comes from, but in the bad western world, you don’t prove innocence. You aren’t found innocent. You are found either guilty, or not guilty.

There is a little something called Presumption of Innocence -a.k.a. the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies- is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty. And, Depp was never proven guilty.

Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must collect and present compelling evidence to the trier of fact.

To add to this, I’m not exactly certain in what legal case Depp could have been found innocent, to be totally honest. His ex wife didn’t press charges against him, she didn’t file a report and the ‘incident’ which caused the DVRO request (that was granted temporarily) was investigated twice by the LAPD. Both times stated there was no evidence of abuse.

There was a hearing for a P(ermanent)R(estraining)O(rder)  , but she dropped it in August 11, 2016. They settled their divorce in August 16, 2016. That’s five days later. A working week, in my country. She took money for the divorce. The money she received had nothing to do with the abuse accusations because she had already dropped her PRO request.

(Little titbit you will find in the PRO link: «The person seeking a permanent restraining order does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such an order is necessary. Rather, at this type of hearing, the petitioner need only demonstrate that clear and convincing evidence exists to suggest that the respondent has threatened the petitioner and that a permanent restraining order is necessary to protect the interests and welfare of the petitioner.» A.K.A. not that hard to get one if your life is actually in danger or if you’re really in fear for your life)

Lie #2.

& is now suing his ex manager for corroborating Heard’s story.

Johnny Depp launched a 25 million-dollar court action against his former business managers in January 14. He has filed a lawsuit against The Management Group (TMG) over claims he has been the victim of «gross mismanagement» which has cost him «tens of millions of dollars».

According to documents filed with the Los Angeles Superior Court, Depp, claimed the company and its owners, Joel and Robert Mandel, failed to properly pay his taxes, made unauthorised loans and overpaid for security and other services.

He has filed 11 complaints, including fraud, breach of contract and professional negligence, and is seeking damages of more than 25 million dollars.

The complaint states: «As a result of years of gross mismanagement and sometimes outright fraud, Mr Depp lost tens of millions of dollars and has been forced to dispose of significant assets to pay for TMG’s self-dealing and gross misconduct.

«In essence, TMG treated Mr Depp’s income as their own, available to either TMG or third parties to draw upon as desired.»

In countersuit, Johnny Depp’s former business managers alleged extravagant spending in the end of January. In May 1, they amended their countersuit & claimed they were «informed and believe» Johnny Depp «became physical towards his ex wife». [x]

Chronologically speaking, Mr. Depp sued his former managers first, before they made many claims against him, some of which were proven lies e.g. ear piece in their COUNTERsuit.

A tweet consists of 140 characters; I cannot for the life of me understand how someone can fill it with such lies. All in the name of good.

This person, presumably has a moral ground, right? They are fighting for a good cause, right? For equality and against racism!

Only they kid themselves. They support their -questionable to begin with- opinion with lies, slandering a man, hurting a man’s reputation with lies. Knowingly. There’s nothing naive, nothing innocent in their tweets. Just lies.

This is how two causes (anti-racism & pro-equality) are harmed. How can I believe this person ever again? Or anyone else who liked/retweeted them?

If they are so certain about their opinion why lie?

4

This is how social media activism takes place; «I fill space with lies and then mute everyone else. Because basically I hate the western world where democratic ideas were born».

All in the name of good.

____________________

PS. And more lies just for the heck of it:

5

Sorry for the sloppy covering. I had turned off my photo editing programme when I saw this.

There is literally no video of a drunk Johnny Depp throwing a wine bottle at Amber Heard’s head on the internet. Trust me, if there was there would also be thousands of screencaps and gifs proving it. What’s another lie in the grant scheme of things, after all?

Why I defend Johnny Depp

Things are going to slide, slide in all directions
Won’t be nothing
Nothing you can measure anymore
The blizzard, the blizzard of the world
has crossed the threshold
and it has overturned
the order of the soul
When they said REPENT REPENT
I wonder what they meant

Leonard Cohen

Johnny Depp. I didn’t start as a fan of his, his work never saved my life, his generosity never helped me. Fourteen months ago, I could watch a film of his on TV and not tell it was him.

Let me start with why I don’t defend him.

  1. I don’t defend him because he’s pretty.
  2. I don’t defend him because he played Jack Sparrow.
  3. I don’t defend him because of his sex appeal.
  4. I don’t defend him because he’s rich, or white or male.

 

I defend him because those who attack him lie, either blatantly or by omission.

  1. The reason I defend Johnny Depp is media. It may sound weird, but that’s the truth. And if you have to lie or hide part of the facts to support your opinion something is wrong with your opinion.
  2. The reason I defend Johnny Depp is because I see his case separately from the plague that domestic abuse is.

If you have ever read one article about how «Amber did everything a victim is supposed to do & we still didn’t believe her«, you’ve read all of them.

They start with the «everything a victim is supposed to do» a.k.a. she called the police, she catalogued her «abuse», she asked for a TRO (and we still didn’t believe her) and gave away the money thus she was not a gold digger. They will mention the «Neither party made accusations for financial gain» to further point out how bad I am for not believing her.

VOX, HuffingtonPost, Variety, Vogue, SlashFilm, Eonline and many more came up with articles of opinions from the good people who did believe her claims and are so proud of themselves that are not part of the «bad society» who didn’t believe her. They make all sort of assumptions of why we didn’t believe her.

And you know what? I won’t lie. They have a point. I doubt most of the people who didn’t believe her spent their time reading court docs, following every aspect of the case to form an opinion on the matter. They just didn’t believe her. And that’s bad.

That’s not why I (and all the people I personally met) don’t believe her.

Do you know what else is bad? Just because «society» doesn’t believe victims of abuse for x reasons, doesn’t mean we don’t get to question those who claim abuse, their motives, their evidence, or their honesty.

The reason I don’t believe Amber Heard was abused by Johnny Depp is her lack in the latter; her evidence was questionable and she flat out lied.

I don’t tend to believe someone who blatantly lies because someone else hasn’t lied.

I won’t believe Amber Heard was abused because other women have been abused. I don’t really understand how that helps us move forward as society.

Is Johnny Depp’s life and reputation forfeit on behalf of all abuse victims who weren’t believed despite the fact they were abused? What about THEIR abusers? Why does Johnny Depp have to pay for that?

In the articles of how «Amber Heard did everything a victim is supposed to do»,

I read: «Amber Heard called the Police»

vs

I don’t read: «The police saw no evidence of a crime & the police officers were in Johnny Depp’s witness list, alongside their audio tapes of the call.»

Either Amber Heard or the police officers (and the concierges, neighbours, stuff) lie. And say, I give you that, the police officers were corrupted and lied to protect Mr. Depp, even though they didn’t know it was his residence. How about Ms. Heard’s actions? They say she called the police, but she didn’t want to let them check the area, and when they did there was no sign of abuse. What exactly did she succeed by calling the police other than saying «she called the police»?

 

I read: «Amber Heard had photos, video that proved the abuse

vs

I don’t read: «Amber Heard’s photos & videos were never examined by any expert who could prove their authenticity

I have said it before, I will say it again, evidence not examined by court experts are not evidence. Bruises not examined by doctors and bruises that tend to change places and/or suddenly disappear or some people see them some people don’t see them need to be questioned. I don’t say they weren’t real. I say they are questionable, at the very least.

I read: «Amber Heard had text messages with Depp’s assistant that were verified by an expert even thought his assistant denied it.»

vs

I don’t read: » The expert authenticated the backups (screenshots) of the texts, not the authenticity of the messages. Stephen Deuters denied he’s ever witnessed Mr. Depp being abusive towards Ms. Heard and was willing to testify in court that the texts were doctored. Ms. Heard had neither the backups, nor the texts, nor Mr. Deuters in her exhibit/witness list. Mr. Depp’s attorney claimed Ms. Heard was uncooperative in providing her evidence to his side«.

 

I read: «She had witnesses to support her claims.»

vs

I don’t read: «The witnesses lived next door to Depp/Heard residence but never witnessed him being abusive towards her. They witnessed the aftermath of the abuse. Their affidavits are either contradictory or one seem copy/paste of the other. Johnny Depp had witnesses too. Witnesses that saw her being violent towards him and witnesses who saw her without any bruises the days after the alleged incident

b

a

I read: «Amber Heard & Johnny Depp settled the case and she donated the money to charities«.

vs

I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request, a day before its hearing, and then she and Mr. Depp settled their divorce. She promised to donate the money to charities«.

I don’t read: «Amber Heard asked for divorce without mentioning any abuse while she sent a blackmail letter to Mr. Depp a couple of days after his Mother passed away.»

letter a

letter b.PNG

In this letter she/her lawyer describes the abuse & claims she wants to keep the divorce private and amicable as long as he pays her up. When opinion articles declare she didn’t do it for money (she promised to donate, after all, and ah… joint statement» they think we have the -metaphorically speaking- memory of a goldfish (A/N: yes, I know it’s a myth, but I like the simile) and we forget the «extortion letter«. She asked for money/car/penthouses and he to keep paying for them to keep the abuse private. Or she would ask for a DVRO. Do you know what’s missing from that letter? Her wish for him to stay away from her. Sure, he was in Europe touring with his band at the time, but if he had paid her up she wouldn’t have asked for a DVRO so I guess she thought he’d stay in Europe and never return to USA? I mean, someone, in those opinion articles, who believes he abused her, explain to me: where exactly would the fear for her life have gone if he had paid her? It’s not as if she did it to blackmail him! No! She was in fear. A fear that would go away if he paid her. But…. she didn’t do it for money.

I’m dizzy. It makes no sense. Not to me at least.

If you see anywhere in this letter her lawyer asking Depp to stay away from her because she’s afraid, please point me there. On the contrary, she asks «with Johnny to continue to make all payments for any encumbrances thereon” for the range rover and “with Johnny to continue to pay mortgage, utilities etc., associated therewith” for the penthouses; so, in other words, she demands to keep having a financial relationship with him. Or she will ask for a DVRO. Because she’s afraid of Johnny, and make no mistake.

Still dizzy.

But hey! “Amber is afraid of Johnny” so there’s that.

I don’t read: «Amber Heard hasn’t donated money yet.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t want the police involved.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard didn’t know why people saw her with no bruises.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard tried to avoid her deposition many times, through lying and deception and temper tantrums. Amber Heard dropped her PRO request before she realised she had to be deposed either way.»

I don’t read: «Amber Heard dropped her PRO request after she ran a smear campaign in tabloids.»

She sold photos to People magazine (that were not part of her evidence list), her friend iO Tillet Wright wrote an essay for refinery29 in which he contradicted her (why did he call the police? Because «she never would?» or because «she yelled to him to call the police?»), leaked/sold the unverified texts between herself and supposedly Mr. Depp’s assistant, Stephen Deuters (not on her evidence list either), sold (according to TMZ’s Harvey Levin) a video to TMZ , leaked the mirror photo/finger injury story (after she signed to drop the PRO) that made no sense other than ridiculing Mr. Depp. And then she went on becoming the face «against domestic violence» who urged her «silent sisters» to talk about their abuse, in the meantime promoting no other than herself.

And while she refused to be deposed again and again, postponing the PRO hearing, she realised she was too tired by all of it. So, she dropped it. Just a day before she had to prove the abuse. Convenient .

Because let’s not forget the extortion letter where her lawyer claims:

she strongly insists we do everything possible to keep this personal matter out of the media spotlight

 

I’m sorry, dear ladies & gents of the opinion articles, but all I see is a hypocritical, self-centred, aggressive attitude of a woman focusing on her image and media rather than proving her accusations.

I don’t read: «Yes, that straight line bruise was a bit questionable because blood doesn’t work that way, Iphone bruises don’t work that way either, especially when thrown to another person instead of… well, I don’t know, sleeping on them?»

I read: «Johnny Depp was jealous of his bisexual wife. He’s homophobic, biphobic, misogynistic etc» with absolutely no evidence to back these assertions (sic).

Lastly, one of the most important things

I don’t read: «Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests when he donated the money on her name. She lied about him having a « novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news» and ««Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported«.

It was a lie easily debunked, considering one of those charities (CHLA)  had awarded him in 2006 «because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» that was still said with no shame. And Johnny Depp never gave an answer to it. Same as he never gave an answer to anything else, other than to claim through his publicist that the accusations were not true.

When her side lies so blatantly over something like this, what stops them to lie over… everything?

And until I read an opinion piece in which all the above are listed and explained as why they are everything «a victim of abuse is supposed to do» instead of a controlling individual’s methods to put fear on their victim, I will keep defending Johnny Depp. Because if he’s innocent (which I believe he is) he is the victim of a vindictive woman (and her pals), of media, and of those who are jealous he has more money to spend than them. Still, not an abuser.

I can disregard all the above and decide to condemn Johnny Depp as an example because he’s rich and famous. But, let me tell you, it won’t stop abusers. And it will also enable liars. So what is there to gain by condemning a possibly innocent man?  Victims following Ms. Heard’s example will find themselves in dire situations.

The reason I defend Johnny Depp? It’s because Amber Heard’s behaviour and media/social media made him the victim. And damn it, I will always support the victim.

 

 

 

Prejudice in media/opinion articles

New York Post’s «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» or as it was previously titled «Johnny Depp will soon be as reviled as Bill Cosby» is going to be my today tear-it-down-and-loving-it-piece of the day.

«SINKING TO NEW DEPPS»  is the printed version title. (unless an opinion piece has three titles you’re doing it wrong)

whole article.PNG

It is an opinion article. So I’m just going to share my opinion on it.

Which title do you think is worse? The first or second?

I don’t know much about the Bill Cosby case, only that many women accused him of drugging them and sexually assaulting them. Recently, his case ended in a mistrial.

I won’t go searching for what happened in that case. For one reason and one reason alone:  it is a different case than Johnny Depp’s. Regardless if Cosby is guilty or not (he wasn’t found guilty), there were more than one woman accusing him for sexual assault.

In Johnny Depp’s case, which didn’t go to trial, it was one woman who accused him of domestic violence. The whole case was his ex wife asking for a restraining order and the hearing never took place because she withdrew her request.

Two totally different cases put in one title because… apparently it saddles «the rich and the famous men of show business together as the big bad men who abuse women» in one go. Both the men and the women become «the face of» a social problem instead of individuals of certain cases. We don’t research, criticise each case individually (oh no no no! that’s «victim blaming, victim shaming & abuse apologism»)

First title had no happy end and changed into «Why does Johnny Depp still have a career?» And if your reaction to it is «Why shouldn’t he have a career?» the author educates us on the subject matter.

To be quite honest, you could read my «Trial by media/social media» entry & be done with it as Ms. Wright managed to add everything I describe there in her article.

So let’s dissect it, shall we?

The author mentions Johnny Depp’s joke about the President’s assassination just becauseit’s led many to wonder if this will end his career.’

By «many» the author means Trump supporters.

  1. Johnny Depp apologised for his joke. Not many people do that nowadays. Most importantly the President of the United States doesn’t do it today. And boy, does he have many things to apologise for! Sure he has, just look in his twitter if not his political actions.
  2. Does the author care about Trump supporters? Unless, she’s one of them I doubt it.

«Why does Johnny Depp still has a career?»

&

«Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor who probably, in my view, beat his ex wife.»

Why Johnny Depp shouldn’t have a career? Because of two reasons:

See how she phrases this? She mentions two things:

a. Johnny Depp is an increasingly incompetent actor, which we should take as fact because of

b. in her view, beat his ex wife.

a.versus b.

one is stated as fact (let’s be clear here) one is stated as opinion (in my view).

The author keeps herself safe from a libel lawsuit. Because she’s coward that way and no one can sue her for thinking Johnny Depp is a bad actor, but he sure as hell can sue her for stating as fact he beat his wife. But, let’s be clear here, she does take it as fact.

And we continue with the same old, fairy tale that showed no dragon, no Wicked Witch of the West and definitely no Dorothy either.

«I’ll get you, my pretty- and your little dog too! HAAAAA HA HA HA HA HA»

She continues with the recent (May 2017) court docs, in which Mr. Depp’s ex managers claim “the actor had gotten physical with Heard and violently kicked her”.

I never wrote an entry about the recent legal docs because I never thought anyone would or could take them seriously. They come from the people Mr. Depp sued for mismanaging his money and fraud. But people/media did take them seriously. The exact same people never considered to write about Mr. Depp’s side/legal docs in the PRO case and take them as seriously. I wonder why…. I know why.

In this case, and while the trial is still on, when journalists take anything his former managers say as granted are…. that’s right, they «victim-shame» Johnny Depp.

Amber Heard’s legal documents from a year ago where she claimed she was abused are also brought to present and we continue with the tale of the strong heroine who fell victim of the vile man’s antics, but by the female power of hers she kept proof of the abuse (used to blackmail him), and then, transforming herself into a heavenly being donated the money she took from big bad villain to poor children…. (as far as we know she hasn’t yet).

But that was not the end, because in this fairy tale there was no happy ending & the big bad society still called our lovely heroine a gold digger who tried to blackmail big bad Depp.

According to the author of the article the extortion letter our heroine’s lawyer sent to our villain’s lawyer is a figment of our imagination. Yep, we imagined it. Never happened.

The worst part in this?

«If you ever wonder why women in abusive relationships are reluctant to come forward, this is why. They get defamed even when they have documented proof.»

This is where my blood starts boiling. If any victim did what Amber Heard did (extort while still living in his house with no Temporary Restraining Order, sell her proof, ridicule him, call the police when he sent his people to get his stuff from his place & openly lying about his charitie’s interests* among other things) and there was an abuser in her life, things wouldn’t have ended well for her. Amber Heard had some questionable (because she sold them to tabloids) texts, photographs and a heavily edited video never examined by any court expert circulating the internet and earning money of it. And her BFFs claiming they saw the aftermath of the abuse. Police, impartial witnesses were on his side. But, but, but…. big bad Depp. He probably paid them to lie. No wait, his ex managers also claim he’s broke. So he had to follow a different method and he had «pressured and berated his assistant to falsely challenge» her claims. Say the ex managers. Upcoming citizens that they are, we believe them. Same as we believed the ear piece little thing and heroised the other heroine, Ms. Chastain. And was proven it was a lie. Alas, who cares?

«Women get defamed even when they have documented proof»

What do they -men or women- use this documented proof for is another matter alltogether that never comes into debate nowadays. Amber Heard’s «documented proof» was never examined by experts. I’m going to repeat this until my fingers bleed, if I have to. A woman’s safety is important. A man’s reputation, job prospects ruined over false accusations is just as important. We need to know if the accusations are true or not. The only way to know is for the «documented proof» to be examined by forensic scientists. And Ms. Heard never let (yes, she didn’t permit it) anyone to examine her «documented proof». This isn’t me defaming her. This is me expecting to treat everyone’s lives equally.

And there’s the detail of his own evidence that the court didn’t see because she dropped her PRO request.

Who cares about his proof? Who cares if he is the victim here? Who cares if the police saw no evidence of abuse? Who cares if Mr. and Mrs. Deuteurs support Mr. Depp? Who cares if Ms. Heard sold her evidence to tabloids? Who cares if she did try to blackmail  Mr. Depp and only yelled abuse when he refused her demands? Who cares if she never showed any kind of fear of him but tried to control and ridicule and destroy him publicly? Who cares if she dropped her PRO request a few days before its hearing when her «documented proof» of her abuse would be examined? His evidence too? Who cares if several months later she wanted to reopen the case to get more money?

Not the author of this article, that’s for certain. There’s the heroine and there’s the big bad wolf and no one can question those roles.

«Historically, a lot of excuses were made for great artists who were also abusive toward women. (Here’s looking at you, Roman Polanski.) But Johnny Depp isn’t a great artist.»

Yes, she went there; she went to Roman Polanski’s case. Because, again if we can’t deal with this case alone we bring a lot more cases to prove our point.

Historically…. we can start from ancient Greece when Aspasia was being called names as Pericles’ partner to… well,  Amber Heard.

«Maybe he was a truly great talent before he started spending $30,000 a month on wine (again, according to his former business managers). But for the last decade he’s lurched from failure to mediocrity to failure.»

VICTIM SHAMING, victim shaming, victim shaming…. like big victim shaming.

You know talent goes away when people stop watching you? With this kind of thinking people like Kim Kardashian are far more talented than Johnny Depp. What? I follow the author’s -kind of ridiculous- train of thought. Also, screw you, the Tourist was nice.

Tom Cruise and Leo DiCaprio are awful actors and I don’t want to keep seeing them in movies. I ask for them not to have a career any longer. You are not taking me seriously, are you? That’s what I expected. However, the author of the article expects to be taken seriously.

«Is it because you once loved the swashbuckling Jack Sparrow when he burst onto the high seas 14 years ago? Trust me, there’s another actor out there who can wear a ton of black eyeliner and dreadlocks who doesn’t treat women like crap. If you want him to talk like Johnny Depp, give him $30,000 of wine a month and see what happens.»

Is it? Is it? Yeah, you in the back who dared to raise your eyebrow in disbelief! Did you defame Ms. Heard, did you unquestionably, stupidly, fangirlily (sic) defend the big bad Johnny Depp because 14 years ago you fell in love with Jack Sparrow? Shame on you -and your friends and family and future kids- because that’s not a difficult thing to do. Thousands of actors could do it; just put make up on them, dreadlocks and let them drink lot’s of rum, sorry, wine, and there you have it! Johnny Depp who? Plus the thousands other actors won’t treat women like crap. Because Amber Heard, as the only woman who ever accused Johnny Depp of anything, is «women». As I said, both actors become the «face of». No longer individuals, but the face of «heroic women» and «villainous men».

Cool. I wonder how come Disney didn’t think about it. I mean, Disney pays him to play Jack Sparrow. How come if he’s so easily replaced, such a bad actor, such a failed artist movie studios still want him? And… seriously, say you’ve got a painter who sold his ten paintings for millions of dollars but then people stopped buying his paintings. Should he stop paint? Should he stop doing what he loves because of a «journalist» opinion? What the hell is wrong with media people nowadays? How far up their own bum are they to consider their opinions as unquestionable truths?

«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. And it would be great if David Yates, the director of “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them,” did not defend casting Depp by saying, “you’re a star one week, people are saying odd things the next, but no one takes away your pure talent.”

Yates’ decision is not going to age well.»

Most things don’t age well, Ms. Wright. Most men over fifty are treated like dirt by our generation, in case you haven’t noticed. Even if they haven’t done anything wrong, people will dig and dig to find something.

However, this is the edited version of the article. In the original, Ms. Wright wrote:

«At the very least, maybe we could try not casting miscreants as role models in kids’ movies. The Harry Potter franchise has done just that, replacing Depp with apparent nice guy Benedict Cumberbatch in the upcoming Fantastic Beasts sequels.»

Yeah, yeah I know… This information was replaced when Johnny Depp’s fans pointed out the lack in researching skills the author exhibited by publishing as real an information created specifically for April 1st 2017, April Fools’ Day. That information was that «Benedict Cumberbatch replaced Johnny Depp in Fantastic Beasts 2«. In the end of that article it was clearly mentioned it was a joke but you can’t believe how many people took it as truth and rejoiced. Proves how much they want to understand what they read. Back to the article, the author’s prejudice and hate didn’t permit her to do any proper research on the matter. Just like she didn’t do any proper research on the abuse claims. Just like she took her personal dislike of Johnny Depp as a universal one.

At the same time, she deleted all comments from her IG account that provided the other side of the story; the reasons why her report on the abuse accusation is faulty and one sided. She didn’t like having her lies/half truths being exposed so she deleted them. That’s how it is done in today’s media. Share lies, delete those who bring to light the other side.

«Years from now, if you show your grandkids Depp’s movies — whether it’s the horrible Willy Wonka remake or the terrible fourth instalment of “Pirates of the Caribbean” — it’s going to be like your dad playing Bill Cosby tapes right now. It’s going to make people recoil. And not in that smirking, jokey, Jack Sparrow kind of way. Because no one is finding this shtick funny anymore.»

Some years back, on International Children’s Book Day I organised a tribute to Roald Dahl. As part of the events, I screened «Charlie & the Chocolate Factory». Children from the age of 6 to the age of 17 loved the movie. While the movie was subtitled and 6, 7, 8 year old kids couldn’t read as fast as to follow the subtitles, their teachers in the end told me they hadn’t seen them as entertained before. Charlie & the Chocolate Factory isn’t a remake of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory. Both movies are adaptations of a book; «Charlie and the Chocolate Factory» written by Roald Dahl in 1964. But let’s be honest here, if Dahl lived today people like Ms. Wright would question his artistry as well, they might call him problematic and wonder why does he still write.

Apparently Ms. Wright thought the movie was a remake of another movie. Least of the facts she got wrong, truth be told

PotC: Dead Men Tell No Tales/Salazar’s Revenge has grossed over 700 million wordwide. But “no one is finding this shtick funny anymore”, right?

Where I am taking this? I have absolutely no trouble when someone says «I don’t like Johnny Depp.» I didn’t like Johnny Depp when the trendy thing was to adore the ground he walked on. I don’t like Tom Cruise or Leonardo DiCaprio. I don’t like Rihanna or Beyonce. Tastes are like that. No one can dictate to me or you or anyone who they should like. I also don’t care if someone believes Johnny Depp is guilty of abusing Amber Heard. What I do care about is presenting their opinion as fact while writing down only one side of the story. It’s worse when said someone has a platform to share their opinion as fact and puts in danger someone’s job and reputation. It’s even worse when the other side of the story, not lies, but facts just Ms. Heard’s actions, Mr. Depp’s evidence and witness list etc, is described «as everything bad has happened to women historically».

It is dangerous, it is scary, it is fascistic.

What I do care is hiding information to promote the idea those who don’t believe Ms. Heard’s accusations are «responsible» for other people getting hurt.

What I do care about is covering personal bias and prejudice under the pseudo-morality of how women are treated badly by society. Women are not an entity. There are good women, there are bad women. There are good men, there are bad men. We are all humans.

In final analysis, and in regards to Mr. Depp, even if big studios stop hiring Mr. Depp, he’ll still be able to find work in smaller, indie productions, in European productions. Johnny Depp’s playground was never just America. He hasn’t been working in HW -and in the movie business- for over 3 decades because he used to be pretty. He’s been regarded as one of the most versatile actors in HW for a reason – even if Ms. Wright disagrees with it. After all, it is just her opinion.

It’s not the first time people in America try to ostracise an artist. They did it in 1952 to Charlie Chaplin. He had challenged the political beliefs of the time, he was controversial in ridiculing a regime whilst it consolidated power across Europe. Chaplin challenged American industries’ working methods and stood up against political acts, which were accepted under the guise of patriotism. So USA put him on exile under the guise of «family values» and «supporting communism». I have seen many young people calling him «problematic» as is the trend today and disregarding his work.

Johnny Depp made a joke about Trump. He apologised for it.

America may do it again; the hate directed at Johnny Depp from all sides is shocking to watch and once again is veiled by moral standards and deletion of the comments that question its sincerity. Free speech applies only to some. That’s not how democracy works.

 

_________________________

*Amber Heard openly lied about his charitie’s interests

 

“Amber Heard appreciates Johnny Depp’s novel interest in supporting two of her favourite charities… This is great and unexpected news,” said a spokeswoman for Heard.

versus the truth:

«Hollywood’s brightest stars will gather at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Beverly Hills on Saturday, Oct. 7, for the second Noche de Ninos Gala to benefit Childrens Hospital Los Angeles.

[…]

«Johnny Depp embodies the very spirit of the `Courage to Care’ Award because he puts smiles on the faces of thousands of children through his great work on film, and his longtime private advocacy of children and children’s charities is nothing short of inspirational,» says Ms. Fernandez-Farrand.»

His «novel interest» had been awarded 10 years prior to its birth according to Ms. Heard’s spokeswoman. Spokeswoman… hm woman who lied! Is it possible?

«Anything less would be a transparent attempt by Johnny’s counsel, Laura Wasser and Patti Glaser, to reduce their client’s true payment by half under the guise of newfound concern for charities that he has never previously supported,» the statement continues.
[x]
Well, I guess women do lie occasionally.

Anorexia & beauty icons

How show business destroys lives.

The uncomfortable truth is media present a beauty image that is unattainable.

The beauty image changes through the ages, but since the second half of the 21st century female beauty consists of emaciated bodies and plastic faces. Fashion models and on a lesser degree actresses and tv presenters ought to be skin and bones to become the face of he industry.

A young, 38 year old woman died of anorexia yesterday. She was a reporter, started her tv career in her teens. She fought the illness for years. In the end, she couldn’t defeat it. There are many factors that make young people start to starve their body; ridicule of weight, bulluing, unattractiveness, the idea of being able to control something, anything, even if that is the food they consume. I wan’t insuate that I know what passes through their minds the first time they decide they are two fat and an apple is enough food to substain them, or the first time they throw up… or how that mindframe continues until their body shatters.

I know about my personal experience.

The first year I was in university after exams to be accepted, I was under severe stress. I lost about 5 kilos. At 1m 66 cm my weight was 46 kgs. I couldn’t eat anything. I remember drinking chocolate with whipped cream to get some calories because food was out of the question. Some time later my Mom told me she was thinking of taking me home. She was that worried.

 

My older brother was getting married that year. So I and a friend went to look for a dress for me to buy. I put on only one. Its colour was coral, medium asymmetrical length with straps. It was early March so I was wearing thick black tights. It didn’t actually fit, but had a class soon after and didn’t want to take them off. That wasn’t my problem though.

My problem was on the bust and straps. Back then & today, I think it looked awful. I was too skinny. I was too thin and the dress didn’t fit at all. Both the saleslady and my friend complimented me, said it looked great.

Trust me, it didn’t. And I knew it. I know what kind of clothes look good on me and what don’t. But I am thin. So it looked good. If you know what I mean?

But the thing is they tried to make me believe it looked good on me when it didn’t. For the sales lady, it was her job. She wanted to sell the dress. For my friend, who was heavier than me, I probably looked good? I don’t know. I doubt that thing looked good even to her. But she tried to be kind?

Don’t be kind.

Tell things as they are.

I wasn’t anorexic. I probably have a disorder, eating or something else, even to this day, but it doesn’t last as long as back then. I could see how I looked, but I just couldn’t swallow any food. Only liquids. It took five years to reach 50 kilograms. It’s not easy. Not even when your own brain & body doesn’t work against you.

Just because fashion industry hires teenagers with children’s bodies as models & pushes them to stop eating and «helps» them to grow old before their time doesn’t mean they love you. Or me. Or a woman over 20, 30, 40. Your body at 45 most probably won’t be the same as it was in your teens. A normal teenage girl will eat chocolate and icecream and a burger and more. An apple is just not enough.

Being thin may be what is considered beautiful today. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Learn to love yourself and be healthy.

Being healthy is priceless.

 

Movies versus film critics

I’ve read this article written by Mr. Buchanan, who felt there was a need to defend film reviewers in regards to their reviews, critics if you prefer. I know you do. I’m 100% certain film critics agreed with it. Why not, after all?

Don’t blame critics when your blockbusters are bad

I will tell you why not. I’m a librarian, I work (or used to) with books. There are books I like, there are books I don’t like. I make my living from books. It would be different if I was a book critic (trust me, I can do that too). Say, I’m reviewing a book. Poetry. Lord Byron. Right? «She walks in Beauty» and all that… knowing the poet’s background is nice. It helps me understand his time and place in society, his thoughts and ideas better. And then, I criticize his work. Not his life or his background, or his death….

Still with me?

For one thing, I couldn’t care less about Baywatch so I’m going to leave that out of this little piece of critic.

A year ago, I would most probably not particularly care about Pirates of the Caribbean either. I would wait for some TV station to air it so I could watch it. Or not. After all, I only watched the three sequels last year.

I’m starting with the title of the article. Mr Buchanan says «not to blame critics when your blockbusters are bad«. Tell you what, I agree. There are some really, really bad blockbusters, same as there are really, really bad indie films. It’s just that studios have spent more money in blockbusters because they thought they would get their money back. The only way to get their money back is for people to go watch their movies. Film critics are in no way obligated to write a good review so studios  get their money back.

And that’s where my agreements with the article end. Because he then starts to explain his reasoning and… boy is it in a wrong way or what?

What should film reviews be about? In my very humble opinion, film reviews are about the movies, their technical parts, their script, their director, their cast (and by this, I mean acting).

The fact that Mr. Buchanan felt he had to defend his profession against the big, bad studios that are the only reason he actually has a job as a film reviewer is telling of the fact something’s wrong.

And if you didn’t understand what I wrote, if the studio’s accusations weren’t founded on something, he would have whistled indifferently and written nothing. Which would have been the decent thing to do, all things considered. But decency is not something found in media nowadays.

«Blaming the press for their own missteps and then threatening to suspend all access if coverage isn’t positive? Okay, I spoke too soon: Now we’re really wading into Trump territory. To blast critics for the failures of these movies is like blasting your dentist for noticing a cavity, and there were plenty of problems with both Baywatch and Pirates before they ever screened for press.»

Oh look: Studios consider reviewers responsbible for some movies failing in the box office.

Mr. Buchanan disagrees  and puts the blame of these two films’ failure (sic) on three things (that are not the press): marketing, stars, quality.

  1. Marketing.

«Domestic audiences can smell the cynical cash grab.»

As opposed to international audiences who are stupid to the bone and went to watch PotC5 that had a gross of 285 millions on the first week of the movie’s release?

I can see why he calls PotC5 a failure.

No, wait. I can’t. It had the 12th best opening ever. (Overseas. Outside of America, where we are stupid, according to Mr. Buchanan, apparently.) For a fifth film of a «tired, boring, no one wants to watch» franchise it did rather well. Not, for Mr. Buchanan, who indeed has an agenda.

  1. The stars

«Little more needs to be said about Depp’s waning star appeal, which had already been whittled down by flops like The Tourist and Transcendence but took a further hit after spousal-abuse allegations and headlines about profligate spending. If people don’t even want to see your full face on a billboard anymore, they won’t rush to see it in theatres, either.»

See explanation above about 1. and laugh. Hard. It is funny.

Also to further point out the fact that I’m a dimwit for Mr. Buchanan, I admit I really like Transcendence despite the fact it was a flop. (The Tourist wasn’t really a flop, but let’s not contradict Mr. Buchanan.) *

  1. Quality.

Yeah, I agree. It’s not as if awful movies have done greater than great in box office. No way, domestic audience is smart that way. Transformers, Twilight saga, 50 shades of whatever etc… to name a few. DCEU has some of them too. (But we can’t say that right now because Wonder Woman is the wonder of modern cinema, according to the very same critics)

I forgot to mention Mr. Buchanan’s explanation over why PotC5 is a bad movie in regards to quality. Read and weep.

«As for Pirates, if Depp can barely be bothered to go to set and is giving such a phoned-in performance that he’s allegedly being fed lines via earpiece, what reason is there for anyone else to be giving this enterprise their best work? These movies are only being made now so the invested principals can afford more houses; they aren’t being made to please audiences, and they certainly aren’t bombing because critics didn’t like them. Give us a good movie, and we’ll support it. Give us a bad one, and audiences won’t need critics to confirm their palpable disinterest.»

Seriously, this is his reasoning over why Dead Men Tell No Tales is a bad film.

Mr. Buchanan isn’t even trying to defend film reviewers any longer. He’s jumping on the same, lame bandwagon of hating Mr. Depp over allegations that were never proven. PotC5 is bad because of Mr. Depp. The whole of the movie’s quality is down to him being late and being unable to learn his lines (the latter has been debunked by Mr. Depp’s own boss btw, but who cares?)

To further demonstrate my point, I made the effort to go to rotten tomatoes and check some of the reviews about PotC5.

Review. from New York Post, written by Sara Steward:

Depp should walk the plank for disastrous new ‘Pirates’

It begins:

«Welcome to the fifth — and, Davy Jones willing, the last — installment of this franchise: “Pirates of the Caribbean: Johnny Depp Is Bad With Money.”

It’s a little less cute these days to watch his Jack Sparrow swish about drunkenly, knowing the actor’s been accused of being an abusive lush. Equally wearisome is the spectacle of a once-entertaining franchise staggering around, devoid of purpose.»

All extremely professional.

and it ends:

» But the real ugliness here is sheer Hollywood greed — which, like a crew of cursed skeleton pirates, seems destined to live on forever.»

Yes, as opposed to all other films made in studio that do it from the goodness of their heart. Ms Steward’s favourite movies are those you get to see in the cinema for free and studios don’t get any money.

…and truth be told I didn’t go any further. Not that I didn’t want to read all other negative (and positive) reviews, but the one above turned my stomach.

Articles upon articles upon articles written about the «diminishing allure» of the movie’s protagonist and how boring & stale the franchise is. Add to that, the authors writing proud articles about why not us nor Hollywood can forgive Mr. Depp (over one thing or another) because apparently audiences and the press have definitely replaced the law.

It’s not as if some film reviewers haven’t spent time and effort to bash the protagonist on their twitter accounts showing the professionalism of a radish.

In my opinion, Mr. Buchanan’s article was unnecessary.

It also proved that what he denies actually happens.

No! PotC5 is not a failure, but film critics would have loved it to be.

Why?

Is it their job to decide which movie has to be a success? Or is it their job to professionally review a film? Not according to agendas, but according to a movie’s quality. And leave it there.

Press, in general, and not only film critics made a huge effort so Dead Men Tell No Tales/Salazar’s Revenge be a failure, not only critically but financially as well. They succeeded in the first…

We see them trying hard to make Wonder Woman a success.

The thing is they are so transparent it almost hurts. They have no credibility left. None whatsoever.

And I say this as someone who spent her teenage years dreaming of becoming a film reviewer.

Because I loved films, not because I had the idea of controlling studios or propagating ideas and movements. I was naive that way.

Film reviewers should sit back and remember what their job is; it is not to instruct the audience what to watch; it is not to dictate which film should fail… it’s just to review it.

 

*

Flops:

  • Blade Runner (1982)
  • The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
  • Citizen Kane (1941)
  • Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971)
  • Fight Club (1999)

etc

PS. I still think the fact they try to present Wonder Woman as the best thing in movies is worse than PotC’s rating in Rotten Tomatoes.