Guardians of the Galaxy has a Jackson 5 song in it. Not only problematic because of MJ himself but his child abuser dad too.Sorry I meant using the song.
Are we going to go after everyone who uses a Michael Jackson song?
Guardians of the Galaxy has a Jackson 5 song in it. Not only problematic because of MJ himself but his child abuser dad too.Sorry I meant using the song.
Are we going to go after everyone who uses a Michael Jackson song?
I mean Thor Ragnarok is more popular than Joker is, but we didn't have a thread about Jimmy page. Who is not in jail and is cashing checks. So I don't think this thread was made in good faith, other than a means to be another strike against the film. As well, you just need to look at all the threads recently. Even with the director being an ass.
Where was all this outrage when this awful movie came out glorifying the music of wife-beater piece of shit John Lennon?
If you made a thread about that, I would be on your side denouncing him. Regardless of anything else surrounding it.
Ummm that's certainly a take. We are ranking pedophilia now? Additionally, age of concent is 18 in cali, where i believe it all started.To be honest, I think Glitter is far, far worse. He is a serial paedophile with several documented cases of 10-11 year old girls and at least one attempt at seducing a girl under ten years old. In comparison, Jimmy Page had sex with a fourteen year old girl, which is just one year away from the age of consent here. Is it still wrong and a crime? Yes. But does it somehow feel less bad due to the age and number of girls? Yes.
If they wanted arena rock they should have gone with some David Eisley IMO
The winner takes all
It's the thrill of one more kill
The last one to fall
Will never sacrifice their will
Where was all this outrage when this awful movie came out glorifying the music of wife-beater piece of shit John Lennon?
The premise of this thread is less about denouncing Gary Glitter and more about denouncing Joker, to be fair.
The premise of this thread is less about denouncing Gary Glitter and more about denouncing Joker, to be fair.
It's mental how many takes like these are in this thread.
A media-led fear mongering campaign about your movie does not make it okay for you to pay and endorse a man who is famously in jail for having sex with numerous children, whose music is never played in his country of origin.
I don't give a shit that Americans still love the song, or that other problematic artists also get celebrated. Or that this movie has been unfairly criticised for things outside its promotion of pedophiles. I just don't get why the fact that this is a problem needs spelling out.
Utter bollocks. Pretty clear you've not read it if you're choosing to believe this. Myself and most if not all of the people bringing this up as a point of contention couldn't give a shit about the film one way or another. If you want to handwave the fact that it's troubling that they used a song by a notorious serial child rapist, that's up to you, but it's not a good look. If you want to play the whataboutery game, start a thread about whatever film or show you want to compare it to, and I'll happily post in support. Can I suggest you look up glitter's crimes before you respond?
It's mental how many takes like these are in this thread.
A media-led fear mongering campaign about your movie does not make it okay for you to pay and endorse a man who is famously in jail for having sex with numerous children, whose music is never played in his country of origin.
I don't give a shit that Americans still love the song, or that other problematic artists also get celebrated. Or that this movie has been unfairly criticised for things outside its promotion of pedophiles. I just don't get why the fact that this is a problem needs spelling out.
This film is just one massive troll, isn't it?
Source:
Nah, it's about a guy who some say raped 100s of kids getting paid. His song shouldn't be in the film at all.I don't care about this movie, but I'm talking about the OP and responding to the idea that no one was upset about Jimmy Page in Thor.
Based off of this:
I don't think we should be paying artists that are shit bags, but it's clear to me that this thread exists because of the current conversation about Joker, not because of any current conversation about Glitter. That's not a defense, just an observation. This movie is already under a lot of scrutiny for stuff like this, so that's why this is getting more visibility than your normal "Bad person's music in a new popular movie" concerns.
Seriously the amount of whataboutism and defending of a film no one is attacking in this thread is disgusting.
I didn't say you were or I would have said it.... am saying this thread is disgusting.I see you read my post. Even if you disagree with why I think this thread exists it's pretty clear I'm not defending a movie or complaining about "what about [other movie]". Don't be obtuse for the sake of dunking on a vague portion of the whole forum.
I didn't say you were or I would have said it.... am saying this thread is disgusting.
I heard there's a scene where Joker tosses plastic in the trash instead of recycling it. I tipped the FBI about it.
LOL. I could see that being a headline.Was the make-up they used in Joker animal tested? I'd like to know this. I tipped the Hollywood Reporter about this.
Real talk though, Gary was charged in 2015. They should have done a better job of vetting this and considered using another song. But no, I don't think we should boycott Warner Bros. now.
Real talk though, Gary was charged in 2015. They should have done a better job of vetting this and considered using another song. But no, I don't think we should boycott Warner Bros. now.
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.Considering how many times I read people posting their thoughts in the Joker OT and on reddit after seeing the movie mention Gary Glitter as being fucked up and out of place I do not think the people saying this is a conspiracy hit job against a comic book movie are very convincing.
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.
The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.
It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.
The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.
It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.So things are only allowed to have one issue with it, otherwise all issues should be ignored?
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.
No, I am saying when you foster hytersia and fear mongering over what turned out to be nothing than any possible real issues brought up are going to fall by the way side because you've already spent your good faith and people are going to assume it is just more nonsense and it looks like an agenda.
Wouldn't be surprised if the director put it on purpose for shits and giggles.Well that information ensures I won't be watching, unless it gets changed for the home release. Why in the hell would they choose one of his songs? His rapes and assaults spanned decades, he never fucking stopped, even after being caught. Ughhhh this is making me so sick.
This kind of leaps in logic is why people are rolling their eyes.
No, I am saying when you foster hytersia and fear mongering over what turned out to be nothing than any possible real issues brought up are going to fall by the way side because you've already spent your good faith and people are going to assume it is just more nonsense and it looks like an agenda.
Please point out any of the prior times I cried wolf on this topic.If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.
The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.
It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
Kind of strange to isolate a single sentence and ignore the rest of what I wrote that put the sentence into the context of a boy who cried wolf situation.I was reacting to your "If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously".
Maybe you should have worded that better, because as it stands what you wrote is incredibly eyeroll-worthy.
I dont know who you are or how you are at all relevant to the current conversation.Please point out any of the prior times I cried wolf on this topic.
So who are you suggesting was crying wolf? Because it seems like you're suggesting that that's all anyone criticising the inclusion of this song are doing.I dont know who you are or how you are at all relevant to the current conversation.
Depends on if you think there was a "manufactured media backlash" I guess. Some people want to feel persecuted for enjoying a movie for some reason.If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.
The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.
It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
If this was the only thing people brought up then people would take it more seriously.
The movie has been demonized for weeks with articles seemingly every day attacking it from new angles.
It's a boy who cried wolf situation and the waters have been so muddied that once the film was out and people saw it that a backlash formed against the manufactured media backlash. You cant blame people rolling their eyes at this point.
So who are you suggesting was crying wolf? Because it seems like you're suggesting that that's all anyone criticising the inclusion of this song are doing.
If you read this thread you can see all my posts in it.
I saw the film and am judging it based on the content of the film, not on the nonsense media circus surrounding the film.
And as I stated I was planning on seeing it and have changed my mind purely because of this issue. I don't think I have posted in a single other thread about it.
Several people from work are going, but I posted in the Slack thread why I wouldn't be going. I think they are going tomorrow.
For "Joker," much of the criticism is centered on assumptions that Glitter was personally profiting from its use in the film, but Glitter sold away all his rights to the recording and publishing of "Rock and Roll Part 2," co-written by the late Mike Leander, as well as his other songs more than two decades ago, according to Snapper Music, the London-based label that now owns Glitter's master recordings.
"Gary Glitter does not get paid," said a spokesman for Snapper in London who asked to remain anonymous. "We've had no contact with him." The song consistently attracted filmmakers and TV showrunners long before "Joker," landing in "Meet the Fockers," "Boyhood," "South Park" and "The Office." "People generally come to us," added the spokesman. "We don't promote it at all."
Snapper purchased the masters to Glitter's catalog in January 1997, several months before the singer's legal problems began with the discovery of child pornography on his laptop and in his home. His new label's plans for a retrospective album were quickly canceled. Unlike other legacy artists on the label, Snapper does not sell physical copies of Glitter's records, which are available only as digital streams and downloads.
In the U.S., rights to the songwriting on "Rock and Roll Part 2" belong to Universal Music Publishing Group, which represents Glitter, and BMG, which represents Leander. A representative for Universal's publishing group stated: "Gary Glitter's publishing interest in the copyright of his songs is owned by UMPG and other parties, therefore UMPG does not pay him any royalties or other considerations."