Powder

[grayhank]

I want to add my comments about this topic but not quite sure how to handle it. I think Powder is in fact a beautiful movie. I own it on DVD and will continue to watch it from time to time. How I feel about the director is irrelavant to the film itself. He did a terrible thing and has to live with the consequences of his actions. But all of this is in fact old history. I cannot defend what he did but at the same time I cannot condemn what he did either. We live in a very sick and twisted world and what gets me is how can some be made examples of while others continue to get away with things that are morally wrong. Why do we overlook others in similar situations.

Michael Jackson's name has already been brought up. He still makes music and people still buy his albums and most of us believe he is in fact a pedophile. Why is he an exception?

The CEO of "Girl's Gone Wild Entertainment" is currently serving time in prison for filming underaged girls. Yet every five minutes on Comedy Central you see an ad for yet another of their annoying videos. I love Comedy Central but have gotten to the point where I just can't watch it anymore because I don't want to see those ads. The problem is I have satellite TV on east coast time living on the west coast. So my programming is 3 hours earlier. Those ads typically come on late night after 10:00 pm east coast time, but it's 7:00 pm west coast time. I have no TV reception where I am, I can't get cable, and the satellite company won't offer west coast time programming. So again why is that another exception.

So here we have a couple of examples of different instances. One who is a convicted child molester who made a movie that has nothing to do with sex and that's labeled wrong. Another who has never been convicted of child molestation (because he's rich enough to avoid the charges) who is labeled as such and continues to do what he's always done. And another who is currently serving time for underage pornography and yet continues to produce and solicit pornography right there on television without anyone batting an eye. I don't get it.

[Vortigern99]

I just want to clarify that Salva videotaped himself receiving oral sex from Winters. I'm noting this for two reasons: One, someone said it was "sodomy" which is techincally incorrect; and two, video evidence is one thing the prosecutors lacked in the various M. Jackson cases.

I'm not saying Mike "didn't do it", but there was an overall lack of substantiation to the bizarre and often contradictory claims of young and impressionable children.

[Hector]

True ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[grayhank]

I'm not saying Mike "didn't do it", but there was an overall lack of substantiation to the bizarre and often contradictory claims of young and impressionable children.

Video Tape is normally inadmissable evidence and an innocent person does not typically settle out of court. Guilty people on the other hand will pay handsomely to keep their secrets if they can afford to, it's called "hush money" for a reason. It's always interesting that the details of the sum are always undisclosed when it comes to MJ. But what is worse is parent's who will sell their morals at the cost of their children.

[Vortigern99]

I'm not certain of your assertion about videotape being inadmissible; I can't imagine why videography of an event would be rejected as evidence of the event's occurrence. In any case, there was no video rejected in the MJ case, whereas in Salva's case it was used toward his conviction. I'm a little unclear on what your point is here?

As to the second claim the word 'typically' trips me up. I'm discinclined to draw conclusions based on an 'atypical' reaction to a lawsuit. The evidence against MJ is thin and contradictory... although I suppose that's a topic for another thread.

[grayhank]

video evidence is one thing the prosecutors lacked in the various M. Jackson cases.

I was merely stating that video evidence has nothing to do with the MJ cases in response to your above comment. There are many reasons why Videotape is rejected as admissable in court. There are very strict rules in regards to videotape. Some courts will allow it based on various guidelines (which I'm not going to go into). Some rules have changed as far as "Digital Imaging" is concerned but this is why I said "normally inadmissable":

WHY VIDEO EVIDENCE IS REJECTED BY THE COURTS
By Ronald A. Peer

1) Poor audio and video, resulting in unintelligible evidence. Most likely the videographer was a novice and did not use proper equipment and techniques (i.e., microphones, lighting, lens exposure, camera placement, etc.).

2) The video images, as a whole, do not fairly depict what they are purported to represent, giving the opposing attorney an opportunity and valid reason to object to the evidence.

3) The video contains extraneous prejudicial matter that causes undue bias in favor of the plaintiff.

4) The images are gruesome and shocking, resulting in overkill. These type of images appeal to “the emotions of jury” and are often ruled as prejudicial by the judge.

5) The images have been shot in a manner that skews, biases, or otherwise distorts the image. Once again this is prejudicial and results in inadmissibility.

6) The video image lacks the necessary reference points or measurement indicators to clarify the scene. In other words, the video is confusing and potentially prejudicial.

7) The evidence has been selectively edited, “staged” or otherwise modified. There should not be any “scripted” narration. The video should not appear to be a highly-polished “Hollywood” production, resulting in lack of believability and credibility.

8) There has been a significant lapse of time and change of scenery between the time of the incident and the shooting of the video. Events and circumstances no longer correspond.

9) Changes in lighting, sun position, haze, smog or cloud cover have affected the video, resulting in inconsistencies, causing it to be thrown out.

10)Captions, extraneous text images, and background music are unsuitable and improper -- constituting inadmissible hearsay.

[fallensaviour]

I have watched jeepers and powder and enjoyed them both.Will I watch them in the future possibly.I will not watch clownhouse knowing what I know now as the movie was filmed at the time of this ugly incident.


On a side note powder was a good film and I felt that the movie Phenomenon with john Travolta was very similar and touching as well.

[Vortigern99]

Grayhank, I guess that answers my question! LOL, thanks for the information. Most of those points make good sense.

But yes, my original point was that in the MJ case there was no videotape to either accept or reject as inadmissible. On the other hand, with the Salva case it appears to have been one of those rare instances in which video was deemed admissible... or at least, knowledge of its existence was a factor in the case. I'd be stretching the truth if I implied I knew the jury had seen this videotape.

[Earth 2 Chris]

Personally, I don't want to watch his movies now. I don't think they should be banned and destroyed however. I also don't like to listen to Michael Jackson now. I can't separate the man from his music that well. It's a hangup of mine. I have to somewhat admire the muscians and actors I like. It's why I have trouble really getting a good laugh out of the Naked Gun movies whenever OJ shows up...

Chris

[Hector]

Great thread!

[Hector]

I have watched jeepers and powder and enjoyed them both.Will I watch them in the future possibly.I will not watch clownhouse knowing what I know now as the movie was filmed at the time of this ugly incident.


On a side note powder was a good film and I felt that the movie Phenomenon with john Travolta was very similar and touching as well.

I completely agree with you.

I have no problems watching Jeepers Creepers, they are great horror films, and I would love to see a final one for a completed trilogy.

But I will never watch Clownhouse again, that would be a slap in the face of the young abused actor.

Powder is ok for viewing too, it's a very good film, but I still find some scenes kinda creepy, if you know what I mean.

...and unrelated to Salva, I didn't like Phenomenon as much as you did though.