Didn't want to piss on no one's hotdog, as I've only heard good things about the film, but that it a massive cock up. Glitter has gotta be one of the worst offending celebrities there is, so it does make one wonder if this was maybe done on purpose? "no such thing as bad publicity" an all that
Whether or not the film or performances are any good, far greater examination should be made of the use of music composed by a convicted paedophile, currently incarcerated for violating a child under 13, who will receive many hundreds of thousands in royalites. Use of the material in the film is a matter for the conscience of the film makers. Endorsing that use by paying to see the film and thereby remunerating said rapist, is something I can't reconcile as being acceptable.
There have been loads of dodgy creative characters throughout history. The song in question was co-written by Mike Leander so is it right to stop his descendants from benefitting?
The song works in the context of the film and in context as a period piece. I'm not clear what royalties Gadd will get but given all the stuff going on in the world at present I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Whether or not the film or performances are any good, far greater examination should be made of the use of music composed by a convicted paedophile, currently incarcerated for violating a child under 13, who will receive many hundreds of thousands in royalites. Use of the material in the film is a matter for the conscience of the film makers. Endorsing that use by paying to see the film and thereby remunerating said rapist, is something I can't reconcile as being acceptable.
There have been loads of dodgy creative characters throughout history. The song in question was co-written by Mike Leander so is it right to stop his descendants from benefitting?
The song works in the context of the film and in context as a period piece. I'm not clear what royalties Gadd will get but given all the stuff going on in the world at present I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Does a pedo go on the run to every single known nonce destination country on the planet in it, to the backing tune of "I'm The Leader Of The Gang" then?
There ain't no grey area around Glitter's offending, and the bloke went and bought a big house in the center of one of the worst places for it (Cambodia), where he claimed he was a Dr and had orphans stay at his house. Whether the music was in context or suited the scene is irrelevant imo, there's no way it should be played in a film, allowing him to earn off it, again imo.
Sorry if this has taken the thread a bit off track, but I do think the issue needs to be raised, and I can't see the film escaping it, wherever it gets reviewed tbh
I hope the outraged on here avoid Pulp Fiction , Back to the Future , Men in Black etc.. which have Chuck Berry songs in the soundtrack and avoid Woody Allen movies...
Whether or not the film or performances are any good, far greater examination should be made of the use of music composed by a convicted paedophile, currently incarcerated for violating a child under 13, who will receive many hundreds of thousands in royalites. Use of the material in the film is a matter for the conscience of the film makers. Endorsing that use by paying to see the film and thereby remunerating said rapist, is something I can't reconcile as being acceptable.
There have been loads of dodgy creative characters throughout history. The song in question was co-written by Mike Leander so is it right to stop his descendants from benefitting?
The song works in the context of the film and in context as a period piece. I'm not clear what royalties Gadd will get but given all the stuff going on in the world at present I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Does a pedo go on the run to every single known nonce destination country on the planet in it, to the backing tune of "I'm The Leader Of The Gang" then?
Perhaps you should watch the film or campaign to change the law re paedophiles.
Not nice, had planned to go the cinema with dark glasses (photosensitivity) this week but what appears to be a dark yet excellent film has been darkened. Surely there must be a means of seizure of assets, this ghastly creature should not be given a bean.
It would be a good law change if proven paedophiles that make money from royalties have to lose some or all of it to charities of victims. A bit like seizing assets. It might also provide a guilt free way for the rest of us of preserving some good music etc...
Whether or not the film or performances are any good, far greater examination should be made of the use of music composed by a convicted paedophile, currently incarcerated for violating a child under 13, who will receive many hundreds of thousands in royalites. Use of the material in the film is a matter for the conscience of the film makers. Endorsing that use by paying to see the film and thereby remunerating said rapist, is something I can't reconcile as being acceptable.
There have been loads of dodgy creative characters throughout history. The song in question was co-written by Mike Leander so is it right to stop his descendants from benefitting?
The song works in the context of the film and in context as a period piece. I'm not clear what royalties Gadd will get but given all the stuff going on in the world at present I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Does a pedo go on the run to every single known nonce destination country on the planet in it, to the backing tune of "I'm The Leader Of The Gang" then?
Perhaps you should watch the film or campaign to change the law re paedophiles.
Would love the law to change Boss, which meant instead of serving stupid sentences in the UK, nonces like Glitter are put down, so they can't then go on to predate on orphans in 3rd world countries. Whether he's gonna profit from his music is neither here nor there, the fact it included in the score is a serious miss-judgement on behalf of the produces imo
@B@Bedsaddick I don't care for any of them films tbh mate....
Shock, another Charlton life thread taken over by idiots off topic. Regardless of whether it was right/wrong to use Glitters music in the film etc after what he did , the thread is about the Film, doesn’t need people to start waffling about where he lived and what he did there
It’s ludicrous to suggest the soundtrack to the film isn’t relevant to the discussion of the film.
I agree with Rob, there are plenty of songs to choose from, there was no need to go there.
Also, I wouldn’t tar all artists with the same brush. Berry and Allen aren’t in the same league as Glitter and that guy from LostProphets for instance. Allen has never been convicted of anything (and the evidence in his defence is pretty strong).
There’s no right answer to how we deal with artists who tainted their own work admittedly, but I can’t believe Glitter’s song was the only one that would have worked.
It's a distraction away from the film. It may well be one of the talking points but it negates what is a fantastic movie, something new, something different.
It's a distraction away from the film. It may well be one of the talking points but it negates what is a fantastic movie, something new, something different.
Utterly disagree. It’s a key song from a key moment in the film and discussing whether it appears with merit is clearly related to the film. Whether the film is fantastic or not is entirely irrelevant, and this discussion isn’t hindering anybody from making any other points about it.
Two points from that article. The song is used a lot in the US so it's quite probable the music people on the film saw nothing wrong with it. Even if they did "But, ultimately, expecting Hollywood or the music industry to prize ethics over earnings reveals a shaky understanding of the history of both".
It's a distraction away from the film. It may well be one of the talking points but it negates what is a fantastic movie, something new, something different.
Two points from that article. The song is used a lot in the US so it's quite probable the music people on the film saw nothing wrong with it. Even if they did "But, ultimately, expecting Hollywood or the music industry to prize ethics over earnings reveals a shaky understanding of the history of both".
His music & words has been used in 118 films and TV shows including films like Boyhood , Kingpin and Small Soldiers. It was even used in Phoenix Nights as a joke but they still had to pay him Royalties for using it .
Two points from that article. The song is used a lot in the US so it's quite probable the music people on the film saw nothing wrong with it. Even if they did "But, ultimately, expecting Hollywood or the music industry to prize ethics over earnings reveals a shaky understanding of the history of both".
His music & words has been used in 118 films and TV shows including films like Boyhood , Kingpin and Small Soldiers. It was even used in Phoenix Nights as a joke but they still had to pay him Royalties for using it .
All morally very wrong if true imo.
This ain't an attack on this particular film, it's an observation / critique on the choice of music, and the ones who seem to be dragging this point out, is you lot. If you've seen the film and like it, fair enough, but why look for reasons to try justify the use of a nonces music in it? Why not take other people's opinions and try and live with it?
I can't wait for someone to come on here and say they thought in was shit.
Two points from that article. The song is used a lot in the US so it's quite probable the music people on the film saw nothing wrong with it. Even if they did "But, ultimately, expecting Hollywood or the music industry to prize ethics over earnings reveals a shaky understanding of the history of both".
His music & words has been used in 118 films and TV shows including films like Boyhood , Kingpin and Small Soldiers. It was even used in Phoenix Nights as a joke but they still had to pay him Royalties for using it .
All morally very wrong if true imo.
This ain't an attack on this particular film, it's an observation / critique on the choice of music, and the ones who seem to be dragging this point out, is you lot. If you've seen the film and like it, fair enough, but why look for reasons to try justify the use of a nonces music in it? Why not take other people's opinions and try and live with it?
I can't wait for someone to come on here and say they thought in was shit.
I’m not justifying it I’m giving examples of his work being used numerous times showing that this is not unusual. If you see my initial thoughts on the film I said it made me feel uncomfortable when I heard it . I wish his work would be buried for good along with him .
Comments
The story is quite depressing though. Why did they feel adment to play his track?
He is getting released in 2 years
The song works in the context of the film and in context as a period piece. I'm not clear what royalties Gadd will get but given all the stuff going on in the world at present I'm not going to get too worked up about it.
Sorry if this has taken the thread a bit off track, but I do think the issue needs to be raised, and I can't see the film escaping it, wherever it gets reviewed tbh
He deserved life in prison imo.
For a remorseless piece of shit like that...this song inclusion will be a huge ego boost to him.
A large proportion of the profitable income for the film's success, now needs to go towards a child abuse charity.
It just isn't right. It's thoughtless and careless.
@B@Bedsaddick I don't care for any of them films tbh mate....
There’s no right answer to how we deal with artists who tainted their own work admittedly, but I can’t believe Glitter’s song was the only one that would have worked.
Take it to another thread please chaps.
Let this thread be for the magnificent movie - The Joker
This ain't an attack on this particular film, it's an observation / critique on the choice of music, and the ones who seem to be dragging this point out, is you lot. If you've seen the film and like it, fair enough, but why look for reasons to try justify the use of a nonces music in it? Why not take other people's opinions and try and live with it?
I can't wait for someone to come on here and say they thought in was shit.