Unpopular Opinions

[DiamondDoll]

My UO's

 

- Sandra Bullock is a terrible, overrated actress who has not made a single movie that I have wanted to watch more than 10 minutes of.

- Katie Holmes' Rachel was the better version in Bale's Batman films. Maggie Gyllenhall is very asexual and had zero chemistry with Bale.

- I like Angelina Jolie and I loved Maleficent. I thought it was a great film.

- Ocean's 11 remakes are terrible. I'm sorry but George Clooney will never, ever be Sinatra and I'm offended by the mere implication of that. The remake had none of the fun, the comedy and the heart of the original. 

- Captain America played by Chris Evans is a dull, whiny asshat I continually want to punch in the face.

- Woody Allen makes terrible movies and none of them are Oscar worthy.

- Josh Hutcherson is brilliant in the Hunger Games movies. Jennifer Lawrence gets all the attention but I think Peeta is actually the strongest, most well developed character played by a very charismatic and likable actor who brings a lot of warmth into his scenes.

- I loved Burlesque and I thought Christina Aguilera was good in the role. It was fun and enjoyable.

- Wimbledon is my favorite romcom ever. I thought Paul Bettany really carried that movie and generated a lot of heat with Kristen Dunst.

- I refuse to watch anything where I'm expected to believe Jonah Hill is A) a leading man and B) funny.

[Julia]

I generally enjoy Amy Adams, but I hated her in Julie & Julia. Hated. I don't know what she could have done to make a character as unattractive as Julie Powell interesting or compelling or charismatic, but boy, she sure didn't figure it out either.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Julia

[Danny Franks]

Back on topic: Other than the first "Meet the Parents," I don't find Ben Stiller all that funny. I could not make it through ten minutes of "Zoolander." And I kinda blame him for ushering in all the stupid guy movies.

 

I'm not a big fan of Ben Stiller either, but I do actually love him in Zoolander. That's about it, though. I've honestly not seen him in that many movies, because I just don't ever feel like watching one if he's in it.

 

I've actually never seen There's Something About Mary, other than a few minutes, here and there, and I really have no desire to.

[ribboninthesky1]

I generally enjoy Amy Adams, but I hated her in Julie & Julia. Hated. I don't know what she could have done to make a character as unattractive as Julie Powell interesting or compelling or charismatic, but boy, she sure didn't figure it out either.

 

I remember reading, around the time of the movie release, some rumors that the real Julie was a piece of work.  So maybe she played the character true to type? Or do you mean you just didn't care for her acting style?

[Wiendish Fitch]

- Josh Hutcherson is brilliant in the Hunger Games movies. Jennifer Lawrence gets all the attention but I think Peeta is actually the strongest, most well developed character played by a very charismatic and likable actor who brings a lot of warmth into his scenes.

 

While I don't find Peeta wildly compelling as a character, I think Josh Hutcherson does a great job playing up the character's strengths, and I think he's a darn good actor. In fact, his reaction to having his name called during the reaping in the first Hunger Games movie is one of my favorite examples of understated acting done right. Seriously, watch the scene again, he reacts the way anyone in real life would: briefly stunned, then horrified, then devastated (and almost sickened), then sadly resigned… all in the space of seconds. That's no small feat, but Hutcherson nailed it.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Wiendish Fitch

[roamyn]

IMHO Angelina Jolie is 1,000x more talented than Jennifer Aniston. I also don't understand the pretentious douchebag comment.

She (AJ) has been a children's rights advocate for quite a number of years. More thsn 10. She adopted children of different nationalities long before it became a "thing". (Looking at you Madonna!)

[PepSinger]

I'll join with the UO that Angelina Jolie is an incredibly talented actor. I recently rewatched Gia, and her performance still haunts me to this day. Granted, I think her later projects haven't been as good as the ones pre-Oscar, but she's still awesome. Also, her humanitarian work reeks of good intentions and someone with a caring heart. It honestly seems as if she doesn't do it for the attention; she does it because it is necessary. Finally, her bravery regarding having a double mastectomy to *reduce* the possibility of breast cancer just makes me that much more in awe of her. She's a beautiful, talented person and seems to be a great mom and good partner.

 

ETA: Thanks, Bastet!

Edited August 30, 2014 by PepSinger

[Bastet]

Finally, her bravery regarding having a double mastectomy to *prevent* the possibility of breast cancer

 

Just a point of order: that procedure reduces the possibility, but does not eliminate it.

[Sweet Tee]

Eh, I think she's boring as shit to watch onscreen. And yeah, I do think that she and Brad are kind of douchebags.

[ruby24]

I don't buy the sincerity. To me, the real Angelina Jolie is who she was ever since she became famous and for years before the Brad Pitt hookup. A weird, goth, celebrity kid who does drugs, plays with knives and makes out with her brother and Billy Bob Thornton on the red carpet. It was obvious that was her true self and now she uses Brad as a perfect facade to hide her real personality so that people will take her seriously.

 

I hate phoniness. I mean, yeah she was very, very weird before, but at least you could see that's who she really was. Now it's all calculated and measured so as not to reveal the real personality (and I think Brad is a huge part of that calculated image).

 

Other than that, she's always been a bad actress, but I think before she did have a streak of wildness that would occasionally show up onscreen (like in Gia), but whatever that quality was has been totally lost in the years since. In fact, whatever energy was there was probably due to the drugs in the first place (I'm telling you, when I used to see her at award shows in those days it was pretty obvious she was high on something). She's painful to watch now. The Tourist and Maleficent were just awful, awful movies.

Edited August 30, 2014 by ruby24

[roamyn]

Maleficent was awful because of the script, the 3 fariries, and Elle Manning.

Angelina Jolie was moving in it. Of course this is just my opinion

[Julia]

I remember reading, around the time of the movie release, some rumors that the real Julie was a piece of work.  So maybe she played the character true to type? Or do you mean you just didn't care for her acting style?

I agree, there's not a lot that could have salvaged that character. I do think, though, if she'd tried less hard to make the character likable and just played her (by all accounts realistically) as someone grabbing charmlessly for the brass ring by hanging off Julia Child like a remora it would have salvaged the movie. At least, I would have liked it better. I can get behind a good monster.

[Jeebus Cripes]

- Ocean's 11 remakes are terrible. I'm sorry but George Clooney will never, ever be Sinatra and I'm offended by the mere implication of that. The remake had none of the fun, the comedy and the heart of the original. 

 

I really hate those movies, too. I suppose the leads have the opposite effect on me, and I find myself repulsed by the whole endeavor. George Clooney alone is enough to make me avoid something, but the mix of Hollywood assholes assembled makes me want to gag. Someone would have to pay me to sit through one of those again.

[ribboninthesky1]

I agree, there's not a lot that could have salvaged that character. I do think, though, if she'd tried less hard to make the character likable and just played her (by all accounts realistically) as someone grabbing charmlessly for the brass ring by hanging off Julia Child like a remora it would have salvaged the movie. At least, I would have liked it better. I can get behind a good monster.

 

Ha! I never saw the movie, so thanks for elaborating further.

[GaT]

I really hate those movies, too. I suppose the leads have the opposite effect on me, and I find myself repulsed by the whole endeavor. George Clooney alone is enough to make me avoid something, but the mix of Hollywood assholes assembled makes me want to gag. Someone would have to pay me to sit through one of those again.

I've never understood why George Clooney is such a big star, I barely remember any of his work, he's an OK looking guy, but that's it. Other than being friends with Brad Pitt, why is he so famous?

[Crs97]

So I guess my unpopular opinion is that I like George Clooney. I think "Good Night and Good Luck" is an amazing movie that deserved to sweep the Oscars. I enjoyed the Oceans series (except 12). His interviews are usually interesting and funny, and I think he is quite attractive.

[Ohwell]

I never thought George Clooney was that attractive; he's OK looking.  However, I have liked him in a few movies, like Up In the Air and The Descendants.  I also liked him in all of the Oceans movies (but that might have had more to do with Brad Pitt being in them, heh).

[Anna Yolei]

I don't know if it's an unpopular opinion or not, but congratulations to Brad and Angelina on their wedding. I'm sure they didn't give a rat's ass about Jennifer Aniston's new movie coming out but she's been doing the talk circuit promoting it this week. Now she's been upstaged with this news. I don't feel sorry for her but this has got to bite.

1) That finally happened?

2) I couldn't care less about Jennifer Aniston one way or the other as an actress, but her divorce from Brad Pitt was nearly a DECADE ago, and tabloids make as many referrence to this as they do about Melissa McCartney's weight. She's been divorced from him for over twice the lenght she was married to him, and about four times the lenght they actually lived together in the same roof. I feel like mailing a DVD of every Let it Go cover to every gossip rag to get this point across.

EDIT--3) I wasn't crazy about Maleneficent, either. The "twist" at the end of the movie was predictable to anyone that's seen Frozen (or most fairy tale adaptations since Shrek, really). For me, the saving grace of that film was the guy that played King Stephan, doing a great job of a guy that pretty much sold out to get into power and was going insane to keep it.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Anna Yolei

[roamyn]

Hey tabloids!

Brad Pitt & Jennifer Anniston weren't the only celebrities to get divorced!

[ribboninthesky1]

2) I couldn't care less about Jennifer Aniston one way or the other as an actress, but her divorce from Brad Pitt was nearly a DECADE ago, and tabloids make as many referrence to this as they do about Melissa McCartney's weight. She's been divorced from him for over twice the lenght she was married to him, and about four times the lenght they actually lived together in the same roof. I feel like mailing a DVD of every Let it Go cover to every gossip rag to get this point across.

Yes to all this.  I don't care about any of it.  Don't care how Jennifer/Brad/Angelina feels/doesn't feel about it, don't care who cheated, don't care who got married or divorced, don't care who's the better actress, don't care who's fake or authentic.  Ultimately, I know none of these people personally, so I've no investment in their personal lives.  Hopefully, the kids are alright, but at least if their home life is crazy, they have each other to lean on.  This crap is why I try to avoid press about people as much as possible - the media is a dog with a bone.  Thank goodness for the actors and actresses who (at least try to) keep a low-profile, and just do their damn jobs.

[Bruinsfan]

I'm not a big fan of Ben Stiller either, but I do actually love him in Zoolander. That's about it, though. I've honestly not seen him in that many movies, because I just don't ever feel like watching one if he's in it.

I've found that Owen Wilson is the key to Stiller being tolerable in a movie.

[benteen]

I don't understand George Clooney being a star either.  He's proof you can be a movie star while not being able to draw a dime at the box office....for the most part.

 

Sandra Bullock was annoying in Gravity and I don't see how she got an Oscar nomination for it.  I still always liked what Louie CK said about the role.  The minute someone realizes you're a "reluctant astronaut" is the minute they shouldn't be sending you into space.

 

My favorite Sandra Bullock role is still in Demolition Man.

Edited September 2, 2014 by benteen

[Pickles Aplenty]

I don't give a crap about Angie and Brad's wedding, and I think her dress was ugly. 

[benteen]

I don't give a crap about Angie and Brad's wedding, and I think her dress was ugly. 

 

I don't give a crap about them either.  Particularly Brad Pitt, Mr. Respect My Privacy but I'm happy to tell any interviewer who will listen how awful my first marriage was.  Sounds like he's just compensating to explain how he married a woman like Angelina Jolie who used to make out with her own brother on the red carpet.

[Rick Kitchen]

Apparently Brangelina's marriage isn't legal since they had a California license and a California officiant and a French locale.

[Brandi Maxxxx]

- I refuse to watch anything where I'm expected to believe Jonah Hill is A) a leading man and B) funny.

 

For me it's more "strongly resist watching" but otherwise I agree. However he was more tolerable in 21 Jump Street simply because he's not as terrible as Channing Tatum.

[Shannon L.]

I don't look for celebrity gossip, but if it's on the news site home pages or on my FB feed, I'll click on it depending on who it is.  I think Angelina's dress was very pretty, I think it's sweet that she included drawings that the kids made and love that they had them help plan the whole thing.  She was a bit weird at once, but I'm a big believer in people changing over time and I think she and Brad are sincere in their humanitarian efforts and seem to be very good parents. 

[ruby24]

I don't think people change that much. It's not like she was a teenager in those days either. It's all now just carefully hidden from view, except when it occasionally leaks out like that year she wore that open leg dress to the Oscars and was acting really weird on the red carpet and on stage. When I saw that I was like, there she is! You don't just collect knives and get blood tattoos and expose yourself like that all the time publicy and then one day do a 180 (well into her thirties). No- now it's just a facade. She knows the weirdness doesn't play well with the public.

[Ambrosefolly]

The Jennifer Lawrence hacker scandal: I would never put any of my property in a cloud system, let alone compromising pictures that if it were twenty years ago, I would keep in a lock box somewhere or even burn. I don't trust them. (And those fears have turned out to not crazy).

 

However,  as foolish as I found what JLaw and other actresses did, I find that a lot of the women who have been exposed have been given too much blame, to the extent that the hacker in particular has been given nearly none. This isn't even war on women but a war on privacy, that just about anybody (ordinary people alike) if somehow caught in an embarrassing/compromising position, even for like 20 seconds, it can be broadcasted on the internet and they have very little recourse. I don't care if JLaw is a narcissist or a slut, why shouldn't she or anyone else think that keeping things in a password protected space by company that brags about its security would be okay? The fact that everyone is being like "Don't want your naked photos stolen, don't take naked photos of yourself!" is the reason why this hacker asshole can publicly thank his supporters. I really want to see video of this jerk in tears as a judge hands him a sentence of 10 years in prison. In fact I could do with more shaming of anyone that turns some unwitting sap into a national laughing stalk. I find this worse than digital piracy in someways , as those photos or whatever were never meant for public consumption. 

 

This goes hand in hand that I find the basic premise of stalking famous people creepy as hell, and this is the next stage of it. While I do find celebs vs the paparazzi really a rich person problem, doesn't mean I think its okay for these assholes to basically stalk these people (especially their children).

Edited September 3, 2014 by Ambrosefolly

[Cobalt Stargazer]

The above is not unpopular with me, Ambrosefolly. I don't care who took naked pictures of themselves, it's the freak who hacked the pictures and then leaked them so he could get his jollies that's the problem. Mary Elizabeth Winstead apparently spoke out on that cradle of idiocy Twitter, and people basically said she was asking for it, which.....I just don't even know. Except that it's gross. And a throwback to the fifties. And gross some more.

[wanderingstar]

- Katie Holmes' Rachel was the better version in Bale's Batman films.

 

 

Agreed - although I have liked Maggie Gyllenhall in other roles.

 

 

I generally enjoy Amy Adams, but I hated her in Julie & Julia. Hated. I don't know what she could have done to make a character as unattractive as Julie Powell interesting or compelling or charismatic, but boy, she sure didn't figure it out either.

 

 

 

I've never seen Julie & Julia, but I will never understand why Amy Adams got praised for her performance in American Hustle - an awful, awful movie in which her performance was one of the worst.

[ribboninthesky1]

This goes hand in hand that I find the basic premise of stalking famous people creepy as hell, and this is the next stage of it. While I do find celebs vs the paparazzi really a rich person problem, doesn't mean I think its okay for these assholes to basically stalk these people (especially their children).

 

Agreed, though I will take your thoughts further.  I will always believe that famous actors and actresses have a right to their private life.  I've never understood the point of taking pictures of them in their everyday lives, yet alone hacking into the cloud.  And now it's not just paparazzi anymore, it's anyone with a cell phone that feels entitled to take pictures of people and/or demand selfies with them.  I realize there are celebrities that actively court the paparazzi, but I suspect they are the minority.  I'll never agree that being paid millions of dollars to be in a movie means that it's okay for the public to have access to you at all times.  That's absurd to me. 

 

Katie Holmes' Rachel was the better version in Bale's Batman films. Maggie Gyllenhall is very asexual and had zero chemistry with Bale.

 

I think the inherent problem with Rachel Dawes is the writing.  That said, I didn't think Maggie Gyllenhaal rose above the material any more than Katie did.  Actually, the only actress I thought Christian Bale had chemistry with was Marion Cotillard.  I didn't think he had any with Anne Hathaway, either.

[CaughtOnTape]

Lena Dunham said it best:

 

The 'don't take naked pics if you don't want them online' argument is the 'she was wearing a short skirt' of the web. Ugh,

 

These actresses are not to blame for taking naked photos in the privacy of their own homes for their own relationships or having them leaked online.  Period.

Edited September 3, 2014 by CaughtOnTape

[Kel Varnsen]

My unpopular opinion about this is that I think some actresses (not all) probably are less upset about this kind of thing than they might let on. I mean in hollywood, there is pretty much no such thing as bad publicity. Having pictures leaked gets you the same kind of publicity as doing a nude scene in a movie or appearing naked in a magazine would, with less stigma since you are a victim of a crime. It obviously doesn't hurt anyone's career, I mean look at Scarlett Johansson.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Kel Varnsen

[ribboninthesky1]

In the context of the recent incident, I'm not sure I agree.  If these were relatively obscure actresses looking to raise their profile, that's one thing.  But Jennifer Lawrence is practically a household name right now, Kate Upton is at the height of her popularity, etc.  I mean, I assume the only reason this made national news is because of the higher profile names associated.  But I guess if one of the previously lesser (or unknown) women impacted by this is hoping to score a la Kardashian, then lucky for them they were included, I guess?  It just seems a bit insensitive to declare that it doesn't hurt anyone's career or someone's secretly happy about their leaked naked pics when, as stated upthread, these women are being blamed for the pictures being hacked.  I don't know - this seems a different animal than sex tapes/pictures being "mysteriously" leaked or stolen.   

 

It's a bit early to tell how it will impact anyone's career - it may hurt, help, or not change anything.  As for Scarlett, I think she had already done Iron Man, and maybe even The Avengers, so again, I don't think she needed the publicity.  From what I just read, Mila Kunis was part of the same group whose email was hacked in 2011, and I don't think she suddenly got a career upgrade over it.  

[CaughtOnTape]

I don't think the debate should be whether or not they're happy/not happy about it.  But rather that their privacy was violated.  These were not pictures they took as part of a casting couch situation or something they stupidly did trying to break into the business.  They were private pictures, in most cases, taken for their and their significant others' enjoyment.  I think making judgments about whether or not someone is secretly a-ok with it is detracting from the real issue.  Which is these women were, in some form, sexually assaulted.  

 

Back on topic, I've seen Casablanca.....I don't get the big deal.  It seemed very one note to me.

[Kel Varnsen]

In the context of the recent incident, I'm not sure I agree.  If these were relatively obscure actresses looking to raise their profile, that's one thing.  But Jennifer Lawrence is practically a household name right now, Kate Upton is at the height of her popularity, etc.  I mean, I assume the only reason this made national news is because of the higher profile names associated.  But I guess if one of the previously lesser (or unknown) women impacted by this is hoping to score a la Kardashian, then lucky for them they were included, I guess?  It just seems a bit insensitive to declare that it doesn't hurt anyone's career or someone's secretly happy about their leaked naked pics when, as stated upthread, these women are being blamed for the pictures being hacked.  I don't know - this seems a different animal than sex tapes/pictures being "mysteriously" leaked or stolen.   

 

It's a bit early to tell how it will impact anyone's career - it may hurt, help, or not change anything.  As for Scarlett, I think she had already done Iron Man, and maybe even The Avengers, so again, I don't think she needed the publicity.  From what I just read, Mila Kunis was part of the same group whose email was hacked in 2011, and I don't think she suddenly got a career upgrade over it.  

I never said anyone was secretly happy about this. That said I can totally picture a situation where a hollywood agent (for some reason I am picturing an older lady with a raspy voice and a ashtray full of cigarettes) telling their client that its not a bad idea to store these types of pictures in a place where they may be easily accessed. That way if they do get taken you get a career bump or people will start to look at you in a different light. I mean yes Jenifer Lawrence is a house hold name, but one of the other names attached to this scandal was Kirsten Dunst, who could probably use a career boost these days.

 

I agree that it is a crime, that said it would also be a crime if I parked my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with a rolex in the glove box, and said rolex was stolen.

[CaughtOnTape]

I agree that it is a crime, that said it would also be a crime if I parked my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with a rolex in the glove box, and said rolex was stolen.

 

Because clearly you were asking for it?  Sorry but no.  And that's the problem with this situation.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

I never said anyone was secretly happy about this. That said I can totally picture a situation where a hollywood agent (for some reason I am picturing an older lady with a raspy voice and a ashtray full of cigarettes) telling their client that its not a bad idea to store these types of pictures in a place where they may be easily accessed. That way if they do get taken you get a career bump or people will start to look at you in a different light. I mean yes Jenifer Lawrence is a house hold name, but one of the other names attached to this scandal was Kirsten Dunst, who could probably use a career boost these days.

 

I agree that it is a crime, that said it would also be a crime if I parked my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with a rolex in the glove box, and said rolex was stolen.

I'm with CaughtOnTape. Whatever I do or don't think of Jennifer Lawrence (or ScarJo, or Mila Kunis, or whoever else) what I do think is that she/they don't deserve to be basically slut-shamed because of what some asshole with the morals of an alley cat did.

[ribboninthesky1]

I never said anyone was secretly happy about this. That said I can totally picture a situation where a hollywood agent (for some reason I am picturing an older lady with a raspy voice and a ashtray full of cigarettes) telling their client that its not a bad idea to store these types of pictures in a place where they may be easily accessed. That way if they do get taken you get a career bump or people will start to look at you in a different light. I mean yes Jenifer Lawrence is a house hold name, but one of the other names attached to this scandal was Kirsten Dunst, who could probably use a career boost these days.

 

I agree that it is a crime, that said it would also be a crime if I parked my car unlocked in a bad neighborhood with a rolex in the glove box, and said rolex was stolen.

 

OK, I interpreted "less upset about this kind of thing than they might let on," "no such thing as bad publicity," and "it obviously doesn't hurt anyone's career" as being secretly happy. It's not that I disbelieve the notion that actresses (or actors) play a role in certain information being leaked.  I'm just not convinced that's the case with this recent incident. 

 

On the one hand, yes, it's wise not to have such personal information in the cloud; on the other hand, it's not much different, if at all, than breaking into someone's house and stealing personal property.  That it's on a server instead of a brick-and-mortar, tangible place of construction doesn't make it less intrusive.  So what bothers me, ultimately, is conflating two issues that may be unrelated, and for which we'll likely never know one way or the other, whether for all, some, or none.  I prefer to give the actresses the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a straight-up hack, theft, and invasion of privacy. And that's not counting the puritanical reaction of (some of) the public. Or the sexual depravity of the hackers (and those looking to get a piece of the action) putting the pics up for bid and otherwise.    

[ruby24]

But we live in a world of criminals. Why do things that make it easy for them when there are common sense ways to protect yourself? We all do know that nothing we send out online is ever going to be truly private, right? Just look at what the NSA is doing.

 

I guess I'm too cynical but I don't believe there's ever going to be any way to make the Internet completely, 100% secure. Stuff like this is always going to happen because there are crooks out there. So it's not unwise to take some extra precautions, especially if you're famous. I know I would.

[Kel Varnsen]

OK, I interpreted "less upset about this kind of thing than they might let on," "no such thing as bad publicity," and "it obviously doesn't hurt anyone's career" as being secretly happy. It's not that I disbelieve the notion that actresses (or actors) play a role in certain information being leaked.  I'm just not convinced that's the case with this recent incident. 

 

On the one hand, yes, it's wise not to have such personal information in the cloud; on the other hand, it's not much different, if at all, than breaking into someone's house and stealing personal property.  That it's on a server instead of a brick-and-mortar, tangible place of construction doesn't make it less intrusive.  So what bothers me, ultimately, is conflating two issues that may be unrelated, and for which we'll likely never know one way or the other, whether for all, some, or none.  I prefer to give the actresses the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a straight-up hack, theft, and invasion of privacy. And that's not counting the puritanical reaction of (some of) the public. Or the sexual depravity of the hackers (and those looking to get a piece of the action) putting the pics up for bid and otherwise.    

I obviously don't have enough information to be convinced one way or the other either. That said it wouldn't be surprised if either was true. To me the biggest issue with the whole thing is that yes it is a crime, but it also shows how big an issue online security is. And if you are storing stuff on a cloud, you are basically storing it on someone else's computer and leaving the security up to them. So really it is more like someone breaking into someone else's poorly secured house and stealing your stuff.  Either way it is still a crime and the criminals should still be arrested, but it doesn't mean that people shouldn't take care with respect to their belongings or their information. 

 

It is not about asking for it or slut-shaming or crap like that. It would be the same issue if someone stole Jennifer Lawrence's tax returns because she had them stored online. The fact that it is naked pictures sort of makes the issue a bit more weird when it comes to the media.

[Crisopera]

My UO is that the movie Practical Magic is one of my favorites - one of those movies that I have to watch if it comes up while I'm channel-surfing.   A great cast, some of their very best performances by Sandra Bullock and Nicole Kidman, and Goran Visnjic and Aidan Quinn are pistol-hot.  Love it.

 

And I just couldn't get interested in LOTR - I saw the first one and thought it was quite a fabulous technical achievement. Then I went to the second one, fell asleep during a battle, woke up about 15 minutes later and they were still fighting.  It was at this point that I felt that I really didn't need to see the third one.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Crisopera

[scarynikki12]

But we live in a world of criminals. Why do things that make it easy for them when there are common sense ways to protect yourself? We all do know that nothing we send out online is ever going to be truly private, right? Just look at what the NSA is doing.

 

I guess I'm too cynical but I don't believe there's ever going to be any way to make the Internet completely, 100% secure. Stuff like this is always going to happen because there are crooks out there. So it's not unwise to take some extra precautions, especially if you're famous. I know I would.

 

 

Then shouldn't we also take this line of thinking when homes and businesses are broken into?  No security system is 100% safe, as criminals can learn to bypass them.  No material used in building walls, windows, doors, roofs, and foundations is 100% impenetrable because there are always machines and tools that can breach those barriers (sometimes a strong storm is enough).  Do these realities then make it ok for someone to bypass a security system, enter a home or business that is not theirs, steals items that do not belong to them and were never meant to, and then turn around and sell them to the general public?  Of course not, because that is a gross invasion of space and privacy.  The only difference between that scenario and this hacking crime is that the security system, walls, doors, windows, etc., aren't tangible in the same way as the ones in our homes and businesses.  This happening on the internet rather than the house on the corner doesn't make it less criminal or disgusting.  Now, I've read that a lot of the laws in a lot of states aren't written to encompass such crimes, leaving the police and lawyers unable to do anything and the criminals getting away, but I'm hoping the fact that these women who were victimized didn't all live in the same state (thus making this Federal jurisdiction) will result in this particular criminal getting real punishment and the women getting some measure of justice.  Then the laws can follow on a state level.

[NumberCruncher]

I loved the LOTR trilogy, but The Hobbit movies have been on the boring side.  The only reason I've watched them is for the actors in them.  They shouldn't have stretched them out to 3 movies because there's not enough content to fill the story and still keep things concise.  It smacks of studio greed.  Then again, I felt that way about the last Harry Potter, Twilight, and Hunger Games movies.  I wish Hollywood would stop doing it.

 

ETA:  I look at the nude pics things from both sides.  I would never slut-shame anyone for taking said photos and it definitely was an invasion of the actors' privacy and a crime.  That being said, I do think what @ruby24 posted isn't wrong either.  We do live in a day and age where anything online is susceptible to theft--by your run-of-the-mill hacker, the NSA, or even corporations.  It isn't a question of whether it was appropriate to take the photos (that's clearly their choice and I don't judge)--it just amazes me they thought nobody would ever get their hands on them. 

Edited September 3, 2014 by NumberCruncher

[ruby24]

I didn't say it was okay for them to do that, I called them criminals. But I think the Internet is a different story than your house or your car, because it seems like when you put something out there you're exposing it to potentially millions of people, and it seems much easier for someone who knows how to do it, to just swipe stuff that's already out there from whatever corner of the world they're sitting in. They don't even have to be there to physically break into your house- it's exposed by just being put out into this void.

 

I grew up with the internet but I have never and will never believe that it's possible to have privacy online. I know I'm taking a risk whenever I open up any kind of account, and I'm just a regular person, not a celebrity. Knowing that people are after celebrity nudes in particular (this has happened so many times and will obviously continue to) I can't imagine not being especially careful if I was in that situation and knew that I was already a bigger target than most.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

It is not about asking for it or slut-shaming or crap like that. It would be the same issue if someone stole Jennifer Lawrence's tax returns because she had them stored online. The fact that it is naked pictures sort of makes the issue a bit more weird when it comes to the media.

Without trying to say I think you're wrong, Kel Varnsen, I will say that I think it kind of is. If someone breaks into your house or your apartment, the cops aren't going to ask you what you could have done to keep it from happening. If your car gets stolen, they're not going to imply that you should have known better than to park it in X neighborhood. They certainly won't suggest that if you owned fewer valuable things, this kind of thing wouldn't have happened to you because hey, that's just the way people are. You'd be the victim of a crime, full stop, and that means your behavior would have nothing to do with it.

 

I don't actually know what was said to Mary Elizabeth Winstead on Twitter, but I can guess that it was something along the lines of, "Well, you're the idiot who had these pictures of yourself, so of course it's totally your fault." And I don't know what else to call that but slut-shaming. JMO.

[ruby24]

But you're not exposing the stuff in your house or your car to millions of people. When you put something online, whether it's a nude pic or anything else, there's a much greater risk, and everyone knows it (or at least I figured everyone knew that, apparently a lot of people don't). Everything online and on your computer is a lot more vulnerable than the stuff inside your house, and a lot easier to access.

[Rick Kitchen]

Don't forget that at least one of the people whose photos were released was a minor at the time of the photos being taken, so release of those photos is a federal crime as kiddy porn.  Now, why she had photos taken when she was a minor, is a separate question, but the release of at least one of the sets of photos is a felony.

[briochetwist]

Thinking that people should be more careful of what they keep on their telephones is NOT the same as slut-shaming.  God, I hate that phrase.  I can still think that whoever is responsible should go to prison, for extra time with the pics of a minor please, empathize with the victims, and still be surprised that they weren't more careful with their technology.  It's not the first time this has happened.  

 

If someone breaks into your house, no, the police will not blame you for it, but they will tell you to lock your doors, and offer other tips on how to avoid it from happening again in the future.  It's called crime prevention.  The crime prevention page on my city's website offers tips on everything from home and apartment safety, to what you should shred or recycle, internet dating safety advice, and social networking safety.  I think that what happened to these women was horrible, but I'm still surprised that being in the public eye as they are, that they just weren't a little more careful.  That doesn't mean I think they deserved it or that they were sluts for having those pics in the first place.