Difference between revisions of "Talk:Woody Allen"

Revision as of 03:59, August 15, 2007

Fabulous article.Panini 19:49, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

The "reference" to a statement by Ed Koch is not a "reference" at all. It is a dig. To say that Woody Allens career reached its pinnacle in the seventies is ridiculous. Just look at his productivity and awards since then! To put him in the category of "Child Molester" is slander. User:Wismike:Wismike

Awards (and there are many different forms of awards) are not the same thing as boxoffice. When a man used to have people watch his movies and now they don't, then his career is coming down from a pinnacle. CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values, and that includes his subsequent marriage. I agree with you with the category removal. I hope that helps. Learn together 18:15, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

However, the current revision doesn't even suggest he has continued to produce mainstream movies, which is certainly notable. Also the speculation about his popularity doesn't fit well. I'm sure it's possible to have an article that neither attempts to downcast his reputation, nor promote his films. Overture 18:20, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least the article is growing... While Allen's films did become darker, he did not just add satire at that time. All of his works featured satire. Learn together 20:10, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Gee, thanks for adding more dirt and watering down his achievements!! That'll teach that liberal-Jew-hasbeen-child molester! Wouldn't want nice christian kids to ever think of watching one of his movies. Wismike

I'm not entirely comfortable with this article myself. It's too gossipy. DanH 15:28, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=woodallen.htm

By the way, Woody Allen has never been a big box office draw. The exceptions would be "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" but even these movies wouldn't be considered blockbusters. If you compare his box office success before and after the "scandal" it isn't that different. Also, the relationship that he had with this much younger woman is not my cup of tea but last time I looked consensual sex between adults is legal. Geez, look at Larry King! In an article of that size, one sentence would be enough. Wismike

Trying to do baiting around here is not something we approve of. No one is to blame for Woody Allen's shortcomings except for Woody Allen. Trying to attach him as a member of XYZ group and to dare mention anyone from XYZ group doing something bad is against the rules isn't going to fly. We don't label people. Each person's actions speak for themselves. You may want to come to terms that this is a site that is allowed to mention values. As stated above CP reserves the right to point out behavior that is considered to go outside the bounds of family values. Now whether or not specific references could be reworded is fine to discuss. But the concept of glossing over inappropriate behavior is not.

As far as Allen's box office, I'll just say one thing that should make the point. If I'm earning the same hourly wage today that I did 30 years ago, how am I doing? Allen had, by his numbers, a hit just a few years before the scandal broke with Hannah and her sisters. In the 15 years since the scandal, the best he's done was in 2005 when his movie sold 1/3rd as many tickets. Now I didn't use that wording in the article because it's not important to do so. But don't try to recreate reality either by wishing to remove any mention of the changing nature of his box office. Learn together 17:23, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

The very article that you have created is "baiting". You are right, no one is to blame but Woody Allen. But that is basically all you see. If you had your way, the whole section on his achievements would be removed or modified to suggest that he is a failing movie director/writer. You should be embarrassed, not proud. Now go ahead and give me a time out. That will shut me up. Wismike

In fact, you use only 115 words to describe his career at all, good or bad. You use 140 to describe the "scandal". Give me a break! Wismike

You don't label people!! Give me a break!! Every article about a person in conservapedia labels someone something. The biggest knock on anyone her is that they are a liberal-athiest-scientist. Geez, look at the writings of your fearless leader!! You labeled poor Woody a child molester by including him in that category!! Wismike

• He is a child molester, for the love of mike! Oh! That was a pun too! Hahahah --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{Ṣρёаќǃ} 21:13, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

We discuss people based upon their actions, but you have gone beyond that in your categorizations. You also appear to be taking out your frustration based on your perceptions of other articles and applying them to the Woody Allen article. Let me see if I can make this clear. In the article and talk section on Allen the word liberal is used twice, the word Jew is used once, and the word atheist is used once -- all by you. There is not a single mention in the article or the talk page of any of those things by any other person. You'll also find, that, for the most part, applications of atheist or liberal are to people who draw that to themselves. While Allen is an agnostic, it's not a point he hammers at in his movies and so that's left alone. Learn together 22:19, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

He's not a child molester unless he 'touched' his wife's foster daughter during her childhood. If he married his ex-wife's foster daughter as an adult, it does look strange (see incest). But let's not overstate the case.

There are many things in the liberal world to criticize. Why stretch this point? --Ed Poor ^Talk 23:59, 14 August 2007 (EDT)