Rush Hour 3 is a go!

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 14 Aug 2007, 17:47

What's amusing about Romero's Tom Cruise-esque I READ THE CASE & KNOW THE FACTS post, is that he speaks as if Polanski fled the country while the case was still being tried and the evidence was building against him. In fact, Polanski pled guilty to drugging and raping a minor and fled the country when the prospect of serving a possible 50yr sentence sank in.

Markgway wrote:You could argue that the age of consent should be when a boy can ejaculate or a girl has her period. That's nature's law. But how would you stop adults taking advantage of that? Is it possible for an adult to have sex with an underage person and for it to be acceptable?

You could argue that if you were a grade A loon! Nature does not work to a set timetable, kids can go through puberty at very young ages.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 14 Aug 2007, 17:50

I do think its such a rare thing that this ever happens to famous people that hey it just gets to me when someone still makes millions and is a wanted man in another country for fairly serious crime.

How can anyone respect him as a filmmaker? that I dont get, why would you work with him? I remember a few interviews with people who have been in his iflms and when asked about this event, they change the subject or say something ignorant like "I am making a film, one things got nothing to do with the other" I think Segourney Weaver (Yup spelt wrong) said that.

Its like Germans in WW2 saying they respect Hilter

and look what they did to the Polish.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Aug 2007, 01:10

Romero: You can like something someone does without actually liking them.

You could argue that if you were a grade A loon! Nature does not work to a set timetable, kids can go through puberty at very young ages.

Hey, don't blame me, blame God! I didn't design humans, lol. If puberty is not the time then when? The idea of an age of consent is a relatively modern one. I believe that something like that needs to exist to protect children but I'm not gonna pretend I know what age that should be? Occasionally puberty occurs in pre-teens which is of great concern but usually it's around 13-14 (I was 14) and that's also about the time that teenagers become interesting in sex. I'm just stating facts. I don't see how that makes me or Yi or anyone else 'a loon'.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 15 Aug 2007, 01:42

I wasn't calling you or anyone specific a loon, just that if someone seriously tried to argue that old philosophy: "if they're old enough to bleed then they're old enough to breed" then they would be a grade A loon.

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 15 Aug 2007, 09:21

I agree with Mark, Romero may not like Polanski the man but that doesnt mean he has to hate Polanski the film maker. The two things are not connected (except in Romero's head).

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Aug 2007, 10:31

the only good film i've seen from Polanski was Fearless Vampire Killers-Rosemary's Baby,ninth gate were borefests of the highest order imo.

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 15 Aug 2007, 10:46

Back on-topic:

"Rush Hour 3" has had a tremendous opening weekend in the States with box office receipts totalling over US$50 million!

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Aug 2007, 10:55

thelostdragon wrote:Back on-topic:

"Rush Hour 3" has had a tremendous opening weekend in the States with box office receipts totalling over US$50 million!

that's not that great in these days of 100 mill plus openings.when you consider the movie is 90 minutes hence more showings per day. it'll plummet like a stone next week and limp to a little over 100 mill total u.s. take.

saltysam · Post by **saltysam** » 15 Aug 2007, 10:58

http://www.the-numbers.com/interactive/ ... ewsID=2770

thelostdragon · Post by **thelostdragon** » 15 Aug 2007, 11:16

True. I copied this news from the official JC website.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Aug 2007, 15:34

Shingster wrote:I wasn't calling you or anyone specific a loon, just that if someone seriously tried to argue that old philosophy: "if they're old enough to bleed then they're old enough to breed" then they would be a grade A loon.

Sorry, but I don't see why that would be the case? It's actually a logical argument you're decrying. I'm not saying society should go down that route, but it's hardly the lunatic nonsense you're suggesting. If a person is capable of producing a child then there has to be an argument that this is the age at which they should be allowed to do so. That's nature. It has nothing to do with society or convention or the current moral status quo. That's all I'm saying.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Aug 2007, 16:55

grim_tales wrote:I agree with Mark, Romero may not like Polanski the man but that doesnt mean he has to hate Polanski the film maker. The two things are not connected (except in Romero's head).

You do talk bollocks.

They are connected, if you cannot see that, your blind.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 15 Aug 2007, 17:01

Phil Spector produced some great records and probably shot dead his girlfriend.

O.J. Simpson was a great American footballer before he stabbed his wife to death.

Robert Blake was an acclaimed actor before the alleged murder of his wife.

So stop talking arse Romero...

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Aug 2007, 17:41

Romero isn't able to disconnect the two.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Aug 2007, 18:08

They dont deserve any respect, or looking up to if they are scum.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 15 Aug 2007, 19:01

Thankfully everyone is able to see the world in more than "Good" and "Evil".

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Aug 2007, 19:58

Yeah if you say so.

If someone kills you and happens to be a classy filmmaker, I will still adore him and never think anything else as hell they are not linked at all

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 15 Aug 2007, 20:45

Markgway wrote:Sorry, but I don't see why that would be the case? It's actually a logical argument you're decrying. I'm not saying society should go down that route, but it's hardly the lunatic nonsense you're suggesting. If a person is capable of producing a child then there has to be an argument that this is the age at which they should be allowed to do so. That's nature. It has nothing to do with society or convention or the current moral status quo. That's all I'm saying.

Ok, so if you had an 11 yr old daughter and her 18yr old boyfriend got her pregnant, you'd buy him a beer to celebrate the occasion right?

Do you know how young the world's youngest mother ever recorded was? 5 years old. Puberty is most definitely not always a good indication of when a human being is mentally mature enough to start a sexual relationship. To suggest it is is absolutely preposterous and monumentally naive.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 15 Aug 2007, 20:49

Markgway would not be saying any of that if he had a young daughter, you can bet your life on that.

gasteropod · Post by **gasteropod** » 15 Aug 2007, 22:07

Shingster wrote:Do you know how young the world's youngest mother ever recorded was? 5 years old.

Say what?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Aug 2007, 00:02

Shingster wrote:Ok, so if you had an 11 yr old daughter and her 18yr old boyfriend got her pregnant, you'd buy him a beer to celebrate the occasion right?

Of course not. I'd kick the shit out of him same as you would. I'm not saying that it should be a free-for-all on pre-teens. God forbid. I'm just questioning at which point an age of consent should be? Why can a 13 year old produce children if they're not supposed to do so? Who said 16 or 18 was the right age for adulthood? That's our convention now but it wasn't always and isn't even still in some other countries.

Do you know how young the world's youngest mother ever recorded was? 5 years old.

You're joking??

I thought it was 12 or something?

Puberty is most definitely not always a good indication of when a human being is mentally mature enough to start a sexual relationship. To suggest it is is absolutely preposterous and monumentally naive.

You're missing my point... if a young person isn't mentally capable to raise a child why would they be physicially able to produce one? It's incompatible. Either "God" is wrong or "society" is? If the age of consent was accurate then teenagers shouldn't be able to procreate until 15 and a half at least. One of the reasons why we have so many underage pregnancies is because you don't have to be mentally mature to have sex.

And it's nothing to do with my not being a father so unless you've something interesting to contribute, Romero, shut up, please.

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 16 Aug 2007, 00:59

Markgway wrote:I'm just questioning at which point an age of consent should be?

I don't think there is a definitive answer to that question, different cultures would require a different answer.

Markgway wrote:You're joking??
I thought it was 12 or something?

Yup, have a read of this.

Markgway wrote:You're missing my point... if a young person isn't mentally capable to raise a child why would they be physicially able to produce one? It's incompatible. Either "God" is wrong or "society" is?

Exactly, my point is that the actual onset of puberty has got absolutely nothing to do with mental development what so ever in some cases. It's a matter of biochemistry, not God.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Aug 2007, 01:52

Man, that story is either utter bollocks, or the freakiest thing ever. I mean, you can hardly use that as a fair example. It's totally extreme (and fuckin' creepy). As the article states the average US age for menstruation is 12.5. So who's to say the age of consent shouldn't be 13? Or 14? Or 15? Why 16? Frankly I was as immature at 15 as I was when I was 12. Mental maturity is different for everyone. Some never mature properly which explains chavs. What I'm asking is where should the line be drawn and if there is an absolute ideal why does the legal age differ between cultures and countries across the globe? Let's for arguments sake say that the 13 year old girl in the Polanski case gave consent: would that make a difference?

Shingster · Post by **Shingster** » 16 Aug 2007, 03:10

Markgway wrote:Let's for arguments sake say that the 13 year old girl in the Polanski case gave consent: would that make a difference?

No because he boozed and drugged her up.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 16 Aug 2007, 11:50

OK. Let's just forget this. It's pointless.