Sonny, sorry. You are right. I remember the little side story on this when I was at Chicago Trib (technically I was one of Siskel’s editors for 25 years) and just read the book. It doesn’t make exact phrasing clear, and I should have checked further. Bad editor!
Surprised to hear the "stay in your lane" argument against political speech by non-"professional pundits." It is a principle of democracy that political engagement belongs to the whole people, or to any who want it.
I disagree with Peter quite strongly. Free speech is defined by the lack of criminal consequences for speech or ideas but not freedom from all consequences. In the case of antisemitism I find it valid to fire someone. A foundational pillar of society is the recognition of the humanity of those disagree with you and those who are different from you. So when you other a group, you are breaking this covenant and you (in my opinion) open yourself up to non governmental consequences.
The Barrera discussion was really good and in the end I would have to say that she shouldn't have gotten fired but in this "zero tolerance for things we don't like or support" culture we have created it does amuse me when its supporters find out that the rules might apply to them some day. Some of the most intolerant people I have met are the ones who preach tolerance.
Just an absolute tip of the hat to you three for having a balanced, nuanced, and principled conversation about a very thorny topic.
Much less important - I wonder if they were just looking to get rid of Barrera after Ortega dropped out. No need to have one Carpenter sister when the one played by the more popular one is gone. Also, their story is done.
Plus, Universal has dropped her from the next Radio Silence directed film.
We are filmmakers with numerous awards under our belts. (Film festival awards, Emmy Awards, DGA Awards, etc. Also an Academy award for script writing by one family member in our little team.) I says this only to proclaim there is some knowledge here between all of us on narrative. In our view, (and I say our because of our discussions over many years.) A verisimilitude of reality is so important to humans as social beings. This was lost in the making of Napoleon. It is impossible to address this blunder after the fact. One can argue for fiction, artistic licence, and even art for art's sake, and this debate is ongoing amongst those of involved in film making. However when dealing with actual history one should be more careful.
'I don't care about the history' (S. Bunch) - a necessary precondition to enjoy this movie.
…or maybe the book did and I missed it. Either way, the book is terrific.
Sonny, sorry. You are right. I remember the little side story on this when I was at Chicago Trib (technically I was one of Siskel’s editors for 25 years) and just read the book. It doesn’t make exact phrasing clear, and I should have checked further. Bad editor!
Surprised to hear the "stay in your lane" argument against political speech by non-"professional pundits." It is a principle of democracy that political engagement belongs to the whole people, or to any who want it.
I disagree with Peter quite strongly. Free speech is defined by the lack of criminal consequences for speech or ideas but not freedom from all consequences. In the case of antisemitism I find it valid to fire someone. A foundational pillar of society is the recognition of the humanity of those disagree with you and those who are different from you. So when you other a group, you are breaking this covenant and you (in my opinion) open yourself up to non governmental consequences.
Ridley Scott (and Sonny Bunch) to historians, Get a life!
The Barrera discussion was really good and in the end I would have to say that she shouldn't have gotten fired but in this "zero tolerance for things we don't like or support" culture we have created it does amuse me when its supporters find out that the rules might apply to them some day. Some of the most intolerant people I have met are the ones who preach tolerance.
The just-out bio on Siskel and Ebert (“Opposable Thumbs”) notes several times that “thumbs up/thumbs down” is copyrighted.
No: “Two thumbs up” is. (And maybe “Two thumbs down.”)
Is three thumbs up Copyrighted?
Just an absolute tip of the hat to you three for having a balanced, nuanced, and principled conversation about a very thorny topic.
Much less important - I wonder if they were just looking to get rid of Barrera after Ortega dropped out. No need to have one Carpenter sister when the one played by the more popular one is gone. Also, their story is done.
Plus, Universal has dropped her from the next Radio Silence directed film.
Sorry, HASN’T dropped her from the Universal film
I honestly think if Ortega was still involved she either wouldn’t have been dropped or would’ve been brought back.
Scream VII??? Aren't they hoarse by now?
We are filmmakers with numerous awards under our belts. (Film festival awards, Emmy Awards, DGA Awards, etc. Also an Academy award for script writing by one family member in our little team.) I says this only to proclaim there is some knowledge here between all of us on narrative. In our view, (and I say our because of our discussions over many years.) A verisimilitude of reality is so important to humans as social beings. This was lost in the making of Napoleon. It is impossible to address this blunder after the fact. One can argue for fiction, artistic licence, and even art for art's sake, and this debate is ongoing amongst those of involved in film making. However when dealing with actual history one should be more careful.
I read the "Plus:" and the first thing I thought was there's a "Scream VII"? Yuck
well, there will be, probably, it hasn't shot yet