Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then he should have demanded the studio pull "Meet the Fockers".
Not quite how the industry works.
See, when an actor takes on an acting job in a movie - even a bad one - he assumes the role of an employee. And so he doesn't get to "demand" anything. The movie belongs to the people who paid money to create it. They tend to want that money back, preferably with a profit on top. (They like to eat, see?)
Whereas when an actor (or any other individual) funds a movie festival, he is the one paying money to create something. And so he can claim ownership, which means he gets to make the decisions.
Lots of things, including numerous statements about the before and after conditions of his 12 initial study participants including claims that none of them had any problems prior to vaccination and that a number of them that he claimed developed autism hadn't.
Then all the lies when it started to unravel.
You are aware that he hid the fact that he was paid for his study by trial lawyers that wanted a link to support their litigation correct? Let's see how forthcoming you are about this.
See, when an actor takes on an acting job in a movie - even a bad one - he assumes the role of an employee. And so he doesn't get to "demand" anything. The movie belongs to the people who paid money to create it. They tend to want that money back, preferably with a profit on top. (They like to eat, see?)
Whereas when an actor (or any other individual) funds a movie festival, he is the one paying money to create something. And so he can claim ownership, which means he gets to make the decisions.
de Niro owes nothing to Wakefield.
I never claimed he did. Deniro was defending the inclusion of the movie the other day. He gave in to peer pressure. An awful turn of events when it comes to something like this.
An awful turn of events when it comes to something like this.
Ehm - de Niro gets to decide who he wants to lend credence to, doesn't he?
If he belatedly realized just who he was giving a platform, he certainly has a right to change his mind. Good for him that he doesn't want his name associated with Wakefield's. Where does "awful" get into it?
Ehm - de Niro gets to decide who he wants to lend credence to, doesn't he?
If he belatedly realized just who he was giving a platform, he certainly has a right to change his mind. Good for him that he doesn't want his name associated with Wakefield's. Where does "awful" get into it?
That wasn't a belated realization on DeNiro's part. He knew who Wakefield was.
A judicial decision about Walker-Smith does not trump the evidence that Wakefield is a fraud. Wakefield can whine all he wants to. He got caught falsifying a study for his own financial gain.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
