Latest Breaking News

oberliner

(58,724 posts)

30. She was apparently duped

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:14 AM

Sep 2012

I think that is a separate issue. Overdubbing new dialogue and misrepresenting the film is a problem.

However, just making a film like this at all is a different issue.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

81 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Actress Cindy Lee Garcia sues over Innocence of Muslims [View all] eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 OP

Sounds like the director is an all-around dick. /nt Ash_F Sep 2012 #1

She should have had herself billed as Georgina Spelvin slackmaster Sep 2012 #2

Except that this situation is in no way like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Llewlladdwr Sep 2012 #3

Actually, both are examples of deliberate, malicious acts resulting in endangerment. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #4

so if I deem this repsonse as offensive, you will support me if I riot? It's just opinion nt msongs Sep 2012 #5

No, I would not support you, which is not the point, as you well know. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #6

it wasn't "quite likely" something he sought magical thyme Sep 2012 #17

I sit corrected. Thank you. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #25

Not sure about this... playingwithplato Sep 2012 #45

None of the US laws have long arm status ProgressiveProfessor Sep 2012 #19

Do you assume that people in a theater ONLY panic, dangerously, when they hear 'fire'? muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #8

Would there be such a thing as advertising if your position was reasonable? No. The reason there is patrice Sep 2012 #12

Yes, obviously, since advertising exists and my position is reasonable. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #24

I feel bad for the actors. Quantess Sep 2012 #7

The people in the theater can't help but hear you shout fire oberliner Sep 2012 #9

Other people are certainly harmed ... eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #26

She was apparently duped oberliner Sep 2012 #30

Well, yes, the article was about these "separate issues", though my opinions were broader. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #33

Understood - but I was addressing the "fire in a crowded theatre" reference oberliner Sep 2012 #38

that sorry film is protected speech cali Sep 2012 #10

Protected speech means you cannot be enjoined from expressing it. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #31

good luck with that in this case. cali Sep 2012 #34

Actually, someone down thread pointed out something pretty interesting... Javaman Sep 2012 #39

She is not suing for "irresponsible speech". CJCRANE Sep 2012 #11

If she signed a release form, no matter what she claims, it won't hold water. read below... Javaman Sep 2012 #16

That seems pretty watertight but... CJCRANE Sep 2012 #18

Over the years, I have seen attempts to break a contract... Javaman Sep 2012 #20

Have you ever seen anything this blatant though? Bradical79 Sep 2012 #49

Oh yeah, I have. I have worked on... Javaman Sep 2012 #51

Not just the nature of the film, but the full script, and the genre of the film. ehrnst Sep 2012 #57

May she be the first of many. VWolf Sep 2012 #13

It will be the first and probably the last. If you are the parent of children who act, then you... Javaman Sep 2012 #15

I have read the release forms, but they never mention VWolf Sep 2012 #21

A lot of student and smaller indie type films... Javaman Sep 2012 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author thucythucy Sep 2012 #23

A hold over? What are you talking about javaman? concern4art Sep 2012 #47

Yes,they are standard forms... Javaman Sep 2012 #53

There is a business obligation to disclose the nature of the project. ehrnst Sep 2012 #55

Script changes are part of the business. Javaman Sep 2012 #58

Not genre changes that were intended prior to giving the script to the actors. ehrnst Sep 2012 #62

yeah, it's a matter of semantics now. Javaman Sep 2012 #64

Definitely - I'm SAG eligible, so I really can't do indie stuff anymore. ehrnst Sep 2012 #66

Good luck on SAG. :) Javaman Sep 2012 #70

If she signed a release form, she really doesn't have much of a case. here are the forms... Javaman Sep 2012 #14

Thanks for posting that, Javaman slackmaster Sep 2012 #28

"to the fullest extent that I may lawfully do so" ... interesting phrase. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #29

Entertainment law is big business in L.A.... Javaman Sep 2012 #36

So it all boils down to this comment you made.... concern4art Sep 2012 #48

Yeah, it boils down to money. Javaman Sep 2012 #50

She was given a bogus script. If it had turned out to be a porn film ehrnst Sep 2012 #54

more over... Javaman Sep 2012 #56

The form is a two way agreement. Seems that the 'producer's signature' was not Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #32

That's probably the best angle she can hope for... Javaman Sep 2012 #35

It is not a 'gray area' if he lied about his identity to them, there is NO contract Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #40

Actually there is a gray area... Javaman Sep 2012 #43

I'm thinking that's her legal strategy as well Blue_Tires Sep 2012 #42

If, however, she was given a copy of the full script - as she states she was ehrnst Sep 2012 #59

You would have also walked off the set. Javaman Sep 2012 #60

If the porn scenes were shot later, when I wasn't there, I couldn't very well walk off the set ehrnst Sep 2012 #61

Shot later? LOL Javaman Sep 2012 #63

Sorry - thinking Rushes, instead of Sides. (nt) ehrnst Sep 2012 #67

Are you saying porn films are solid sex from opening to end? There often are minor bits uppityperson Sep 2012 #68

most porns are shot in a single day, most of the time two in a day. Javaman Sep 2012 #69

that may be, but they also add in other footage that isn't porn uppityperson Sep 2012 #71

this conversation has taken a very odd and strange twist. Javaman Sep 2012 #72

Because this is the basis of the OP? Because she might have been filmed in something that uppityperson Sep 2012 #73

Oh for the love of all things good, give it up. Javaman Sep 2012 #75

Well, excuse me for answering. Why such a nasty reply? Good grief. For sure I will stop uppityperson Sep 2012 #76

Not nasty. Javaman Sep 2012 #77

last-word-itis? uppityperson Sep 2012 #78

LOL Sure, why not? Javaman Sep 2012 #79

It sounds like the film is ruining the lives of everyone Jamastiene Sep 2012 #27

I think their best bet is a civil lawsuit. Javaman Sep 2012 #37

As an actor, I can see that she could argue that she was misinformed of the ehrnst Sep 2012 #41

I think added argument could be that now she is associated with the film... Javaman Sep 2012 #44

This is what's wrong with America and more and more of the world... concern4art Sep 2012 #46

Did you read the article? The script she received had no mention of Mohammed or religion. ehrnst Sep 2012 #52

This is what's wrong with America and more and more of the world... uppityperson Sep 2012 #65

I just finish watching the movie -Monty Python's Life of Brian- AlphaCentauri Sep 2012 #74

Her resume on IMDB and her profile on LinkedIn both have this movie as one of her credits TexasBushwhacker Sep 2012 #80

Why sue the director unless he's the producer as well? Darth_Kitten Sep 2012 #81