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.
According to the news tonight, a 3rd suit has been filed.
Looks like all the money-grubbers are coming out of the woodworks now. It's funny how these people were not so "emotionally damaged" that they needed monetary compensation before but once one guy saw an opportunity to make a quick buck, the rest followed. Or am I supposed to believe John Travolta molested three men in the same week?
Even if it was true, why would it affect his career? Robert Downey Jr's life was a train wreck but he came back a bigger star. Or Charlie Sheen? He's got a new show. Even Mel Gibson got another chance, and Lindsay Lohan is working again.
Even if it was true, why would it affect his career? Robert Downey Jr's life was a train wreck but he came back a bigger star. Or Charlie Sheen? He's got a new show. Even Mel Gibson got another chance, and Lindsay Lohan is working again.
Maybe because it would indicate that he has a sexual interest in men and that is still a big no-no in Hollywood?
I could be totally wrong but the thought has crossed my mind that this might be a smear campaign by the Church of Scientology, of which John Travolta is a member. They're famous for pulling these kind of practices with people who want to leave the religion or speak badly about it (called "suppressive persons"). From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Scientology has a reputation for hostile action toward anyone who criticizes it in a public forum; executives within the organization have proclaimed that it is "not a turn-the-other-cheek religion."[6]Journalists, politicians, former Scientologists and various anti-cult groups have made accusations of wrongdoing against Scientology since the 1960s, and almost without exception these critics have been targeted for retaliation by Scientology, in the form of lawsuits and public counter-accusations of personal wrongdoing. Many of Scientology's critics have also reported they were subject to threats and harassment in their private lives.[7][8]
The organization's actions reflect a formal policy for dealing with criticism instituted by L. Ron Hubbard, called "attack the attacker." This policy was codified by Hubbard in the latter half of the 1960s, in response to government investigations into the organization. In 1966, Hubbard wrote a criticism of the organization's behavior and noted the "correct procedure" for attacking enemies of Scientology:
(1) Spot who is attacking us.(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.Don't ever tamely submit to an investigation of us. Make it rough, rough on attackers all the way. You can get "reasonable about it" and lose. Sure we break no laws. Sure we have nothing to hide. BUT attackers are simply an anti-Scientology propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us. I speak from 15 years of experience in this. There has never yet been an attacker who was not reeking with crime. All we had to do was look for it and murder would come out.
—Attacks on Scientology, "Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter," 25 February 1966
In written policies dating from the mid-1950s, Hubbard told his followers to take a hard line against perceived opponents. In 1955 he wrote, "The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly".[7]
In his confidential Manual of Justice of 1959, Hubbard wrote "People attack Scientology. I never forget it, always even the score."[1] He advocated using private investigators to investigate critics, who had turned out to be "members of the Communist Party or criminals, usually both. The smell of police or private detectives caused them to fly, to close down, to confess. Hire them and damn the cost when you need to."[8] He said that in dealing with opponents, his followers should "always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."[9]He urged the use of "black propaganda" to "destroy reputation or public belief in persons, companies or nations."
Of course I have no proof for this so it's just speculation but I just find it a bit strange to see all of these people coming out of the woodworks now.
I don't know if he did it or not and much like any crazy sh.t that any crazy celebrity is accused of doing anything does not mean much to me but what gets my blood boiling is the fact that anyone can sue anyone and if their accusations were bogus, they get nothing and just go their way.
The justice system has to change so that is any plaintiff's accusation proven to be bogus, they should face charges automatically and/or pay a penalty fee, that way all this ridiculously common lawsuits will vanish. With such a law in place, people would likely to have a legitimate claim if they are suing anyone.
The justice system has to change so that is any plaintiff's accusation proven to be bogus, they should face charges automatically and/or pay a penalty fee, that way all this ridiculously common lawsuits will vanish. With such a law in place, people would likely to have a legitimate claim if they are suing anyone.
There is a law against this and it's called "frivolous litigation," or something like that. I believe it would involve a counter-suit. I think that people who stir up "frivolous litigation" should really get the book thrown at them. Look at all the suits movie stars file, for ridiculous amounts, including major A-hole Charlie Sheen, within the last week or so.
Maybe because it would indicate that he has a sexual interest in men and that is still a big no-no in Hollywood?
[/indent]
Are you kidding? Hollywood is the most tolerant place in the world for homosexual lifestyle and it does not hold anybody back like it did in the age of Rock Hudson, etc.
Are you kidding? Hollywood is the most tolerant place in the world for homosexual lifestyle and it does not hold anybody back like it did in the age of Rock Hudson, etc.
I don't mean Hollywood itself, I mean the public's perception of people working in Hollywood. If it came out that JT was gay, he could lose part of his fanbase (the homophobes, the fangirls, the people who dislike him for lying to his wife and children, etc.). It definitely holds people back and it's naive to say it doesn't. Look at the backlash Ellen DeGeneres received recently when she became a spokesperson for JC Penney. There were activist groups (like "One Million Moms") trying to get JC Penney to fire her solely based on her sexuality. I'm not saying it's impossible to have a career in Hollywood if you're gay but it is definitely a disadvantage compared to being heterosexual.
Being bi-sexual, or giving the perception that your bi-sexual, while rising up in Hollywood, works to peoples advantage, not disadvantage...
Being some stuffy, 700 club Pat Roberson type, will probably have you cleaning drains...(if u want to be a priest or pastor, an acting career is probably not a good choice of work)
Swinging both ways, or pretending to, has it's advantages in Hollywood...your career, or opportunities, will open up twice as fast, or could...
Remember...Hollywood isn't church...
This is behind the scenes stuff that most there know and deal with...the key is not to over publicize it, like Rosie Odonald did on her show...to the point it turned fans off...and Oprah canned her...
People really don't want to know how their celebrities were 'created' or what they had to do to get chosen for a role, out of 5000 other canidates...
Nieve people like to think it was solely do to 'talent'...
And that's how Hollywood would like for it to remain...
Nice clean crisp wholesome image...
Just ask the 100's of runaways who end up there every year if that's true...
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.
