Article re: Paul's death

[Aba21]

AnnaKonda said:

Fact is, though, that he managed to draw a lot of attention to the flaws of the other guys ...

and for this we should have him drawn and quartered...

[ZeldaFScott]

Aba21 said:

and for this we should have him drawn and quartered...

Well, if that is possible ... why not? ;D (I'm kidding)

[keres]

Aba21 said:

The only fault that Otis had that seems to be the most talked about is wether he should have wrote it and what he wrote. The fact is he was a Temptation, and that gives him the right to write his version of the events as he saw them. I don't care how you break it down and what you think he did wrong. It is still his version and he had a write to write it. YOu can't tell him what he could and could not write, that;s crazy. If it means he gets flogged every day for the rest of his life, he still can write what he wants.

The common every day person may not have known about the troubles of the group but arrests and newspapers accounts at the time of Paul's death made it common knowledge. Are you saying Paul didn't drink? That's all I want to know. I don't care to what extent he drank, did he drink.? And if he was sick, he shouldn't have been drinking. We know alcohol can have an adverse affect on someone who is sick. Otis didn't make him sick and he didn't make him drink. Those are facts. We can hollar til we're blue in the face about how much but nobody knows who wasn't there.

But the main thing is, it is okay to have a different opinon. Just because one doesn't agree doesn't mean they don't have any validity to their thoughts. It ceases to be a discussion when there is no two way. I don't think anyone is trying to change the other's mind about the events cause I don't care what you write, none of us were there when it happened so that means no one person's belief carries more weight than another one.

In turn it also means that what Otis wrote ain't the last word and shouldn't be treated as such. No by those who are for it and not by those against it as well.

This thread started out as a discussion about an article in the newspaper in which people talked about the death od PAul. In it people said a number of things about Pau'ls health and welfare and not one quote was from Otis. Between the time of Paul's death and Otis book, much has been said about David and Paul. By the time Otis wrote his book not only did he feel it was ok to say it, Motown ok'd it for the movie.

But is it really important in the grand scheme. Not to me. It doesn't change the way I feel about any of the members of the Temptations. So what they had faults......so do I and so do everybody else who reads this. It just don't matter. You ain't ever gonna get everybody on the same page on this subject, simple as that. I got a knot onmy forehead from ;D

That is very right! Aba, I think if you`d be basketball coach, your team would soon become champions because every time you say something, it`s always right and usually very wise. If people would more pay attention to what you say, it would be good.

[crella25]

Just for the record, I think O portrayed himself as a weak and horrible husband and father. I don't think he took either responsibility seriously. He seemed more dedicated to singing than his own flesh and blood. The movie didn't make him look any better. That park scene was crazy, he couldn't even figure out which kid he came to the park with ( left with a totally different one) :laughing. A-n-y-w-a-y.... O had plenty of mess wtih him. But we never talk about it, so I am. O had just as much grease on his zipper as the others, if not more. Paul had a better relationship with his family in both the book and movie. IMO.

[mcribs]

There you go, Crella! That IS Otis' character flaw...he ignored his family and fooled around and he told us about it in the book, it made its way into the movie.

[keres]

crella25 said:

Just for the record, I think O portrayed himself as a weak and horrible husband and father. I don't think he took either responsibility seriously. He seemed more dedicated to singing than his own flesh and blood. The movie didn't make him look any better. That park scene was crazy, he couldn't even figure out which kid he came to the park with ( left with a totally different one) . A-n-y-w-a-y.... O had plenty of mess wtih him. But we never talk about it, so I am. O had just as much grease on his zipper as the others, if not more. Paul had a better relationship with his family in both the book and movie. IMO.

I don`t want to sound rude now, but how`s this related to article about Paul`s death, which this thread is all about? If someone wants to discuss Otis and his book, then make a thread "Otis and his book".

And how`s Paul was so much better parent than Otis? Paul was an alcoholic! Who knows how he behaved when he was drunk? This is actually not our business anyway.

***

[MikeNYC]

McRibs said:

That's funny. When I read Martha's book, I thought, "Boy, she SURE doesn't like Diana Ross!" Not that I am a fan of Diana's, but I think Martha using her story to trash Diana and Berry Gordy is much more out of line. At least Otis was in a group with Paul and David! I did not read Smokey's or Gladys' book, but I think they are more positive people to begin with. I'm not saying that it was the best decision, but to say that Otis doesn't have the RIGHT to write about what happened in the group, is a little harsh. I think we all understand that it is your opinion that Otis should be flogged for doing it, but some of us disagree with you.

Well,I'm saying that Otis had no right to trash the other members like he did.Then,he said in the revised book that he's adding more now that Eddie & David are dead? And you think it's ok? Hell no it ain't. It's trash at it's purest form. Like I said ,it's just sad that so many people don't see what's wrong with this picture.Damn shame.........It sucks.

[MikeNYC]

McRibs said:

There you go, Crella! That IS Otis' character flaw...he ignored his family and fooled around and he told us about it in the book, it made its way into the movie.

And,don't forget..he likes to trash dead people! Can't forget that one! ;D
Truth be told,I don't understand why people are DUCKING this FACT !

[MikeNYC]

Aba21 said:

The only fault that Otis had that seems to be the most talked about is wether he should have wrote it and what he wrote. The fact is he was a Temptation, and that gives him the right to write his version of the events as he saw them. I don't care how you break it down and what you think he did wrong. It is still his version and he had a write to write it. YOu can't tell him what he could and could not write, that;s crazy. If it means he gets flogged every day for the rest of his life, he still can write what he wants.

The common every day person may not have known about the troubles of the group but arrests and newspapers accounts at the time of Paul's death made it common knowledge. Are you saying Paul didn't drink? That's all I want to know. I don't care to what extent he drank, did he drink.? And if he was sick, he shouldn't have been drinking. We know alcohol can have an adverse affect on someone who is sick. Otis didn't make him sick and he didn't make him drink. Those are facts. We can hollar til we're blue in the face about how much but nobody knows who wasn't there.

But the main thing is, it is okay to have a different opinon. Just because one doesn't agree doesn't mean they don't have any validity to their thoughts. It ceases to be a discussion when there is no two way. I don't think anyone is trying to change the other's mind about the events cause I don't care what you write, none of us were there when it happened so that means no one person's belief carries more weight than another one.

In turn it also means that what Otis wrote ain't the last word and shouldn't be treated as such. No by those who are for it and not by those against it as well.

This thread started out as a discussion about an article in the newspaper in which people talked about the death od PAul. In it people said a number of things about Pau'ls health and welfare and not one quote was from Otis. Between the time of Paul's death and Otis book, much has been said about David and Paul. By the time Otis wrote his book not only did he feel it was ok to say it, Motown ok'd it for the movie.

But is it really important in the grand scheme. Not to me. It doesn't change the way I feel about any of the members of the Temptations. So what they had faults......so do I and so do everybody else who reads this. It just don't matter. You ain't ever gonna get everybody on the same page on this subject, simple as that. I got a knot onmy forehead from ;D

With all this said,does that make it right? Otis had no right telling people's personal business. All this talk about faults,but the biggest fault is trying to get swept under the rug....Why would Otis write that he was going to say more ,now that David & Eddie are dead? What was the purpose in doing that? What's wrong,nobody wanna touch this with a ten foot pole? Is the question too hard? Maybe because I'm right and there's no getting around that FACT? If these things that Y'all say concerning Otis' right to tell whatever he wants to is what you really believe...why the silence?
Not even Ivory can even attempt to explain that one away. I'm just glad nobody's trying to tell me that Otis never said anything near what I give him credit for?
We all know that she would ,if she could. But she can't,so she won't!

[Aba21]

MikeNYC said:

With all this said,does that make it right? Otis had no right telling people's personal business. All this talk about faults,but the biggest fault is trying to get swept under the rug....Why would Otis write that he was going to say more ,now that David & Eddie are dead? What was the purpose in doing that? What's wrong,nobody wanna touch this with a ten foot pole? Is the question too hard? Maybe because I'm right and there's no getting around that FACT? If these things that Y'all say concerning Otis' right to tell whatever he wants to is what you really believe...why the silence?
Not even Ivory can even attempt to explain that one away. I'm just glad nobody's trying to tell me that Otis never said anything near what I give him credit for?
We all know that she would ,if she could. But she can't,so she won't!

The fact is though he didn't say anymore about Eddie or David. He just filled in the reason why he chose not to explain how sick Melvin was and why it was dipicted in the movie the way it was. It was Melvin he talked about. The way he wnet down in rehearsal and the ensuing illness that took him to his death. I don't remember anything else. He only added a chapter or two at then of the book. I may have missed something but I don't think he said anymore about David and Eddie than he said in the original book. I'll have to go back and re-read that part.

I'm not trying to make what he wrote be right, Mike. I'm just saying he had a right to write his version. If that's his version so be it. We don't have to like it or agree with it. I am not the one who can say its right or wrong. But I can say he did have the right to write his book. I don't need permission to write one if I choose and I can tell whatever story I want to tell. Let's hope I choose the right course and tell *MY* story! ;D

[EddiesLuv]

Aba21 said:

The fact is though he didn't say anymore about Eddie or David. He just filled in the reason why he chose not to explain how sick Melvin was and why it was dipicted in the movie the way it was. It was Melvin he talked about. The way he wnet down in rehearsal and the ensuing illness that took him to his death. I don't remember anything else. He only added a chapter or two at then of the book. I may have missed something but I don't think he said anymore about David and Eddie than he said in the original book. I'll have to go back and re-read that part.

I'm not trying to make what he wrote be right, Mike. I'm just saying he had a right to write his version. If that's his version so be it. We don't have to like it or agree with it. I am not the one who can say its right or wrong. But I can say he did have the right to write his book. I don't need permission to write one if I choose and I can tell whatever story I want to tell. Let's hope I choose the right course and tell *MY* story! ;D

I agree that he had a right to tell his story however he wanted to. I also feel that the title of the movie/ book should have emphasized this was from Williams' perspective only. The movie especially should have been called the Temptations as seen or as told by Otis Williams. Other than that I do agree that he could say whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted. It was his choice to make. He could make himself look like the saint or saviour of the group or he could make himself look like a backstabbing, money hungry, opportunist. Either way he took the chance and the rest is history as one sided as it may be. The rest of the members of the group chose not to or just didn't get around to doing it and that was their right as well. Without that preface, the movie seems to serve as a docudrama for the group.

[Aba21]

EddiesLuv said:

I agree that he had a right to tell his story however he wanted to. I also feel that the title of the movie/ book should have emphasized this was from Williams' perspective only. The movie especially should have been called the Temptations as seen or as told by Otis Williams. Other than that I do agree that he could say whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted. It was his choice to make. He could make himself look like the saint or saviour of the group or he could make himself look like a backstabbing, money hungry, opportunist. Either way he took the chance and the rest is history as one sided as it may be. The rest of the members of the group chose not to or just didn't get around to doing it and that was their right as well. Without that preface, the movie seems to serve as a docudrama for the group.

You're right and I believe that was mentioned on VHS at the end of the second part when they talked to him about it. I understand most didn't know the story of the Temptations prior to the movie but once again I say that once a book is sold to a screenwriter for TV/movie, that screenwriter has a job to fill four hours with as much info as he can. I always use the Melvin scene where his car is jacked while he's chasing a skirt after drinking medicine...yes drinking medicine from a presrciption bottle.....Please give me a break. Even if I didn't know the real story that wouldn't fly with me. Or the scene with Paul drunkenly singing For Once In My Life at at party. Do we know that party even happened? I do not think you can hold him responsible for the movie.

But your point is well taken with the book......maybe he knew what he was doing when he wrote it and maybe he thought he was just writing from the things he saw....however you feel about what he wrote doesn't change the fact that he could write whatever he wanted. He pays whatever price each reader of the book gets from what he wrote. That's how I see it.

And like you I recall Eddie saying he wouldn't write anything. That was *HIS* choice. David planned to tell his side but unfortuneatly *his choice* was made for him. And now Richard plans to write something. I hope we get it cause we really need another perspective on the story. Then we will have something to compare notes with.

[kalisa2]

EddiesLuv said:

I agree that he had a right to tell his story however he wanted to. I also feel that the title of the movie/ book should have emphasized this was from Williams' perspective only. The movie especially should have been called the Temptations as seen or as told by Otis Williams. Other than that I do agree that he could say whatever he wanted to whomever he wanted. It was his choice to make. He could make himself look like the saint or saviour of the group or he could make himself look like a backstabbing, money hungry, opportunist. Either way he took the chance and the rest is history as one sided as it may be. The rest of the members of the group chose not to or just didn't get around to doing it and that was their right as well. Without that preface, the movie seems to serve as a docudrama for the group.

Nicely put, EddiesLuv...and back to one of the main features of this thread, Otis didn't tell much of anything that wasn't already out there, and by other people, in one form or another , though not wrapped up in a neat little book package. And we have to keep remembering, I know I do, the book and movie are wrapped together in my mind but there are things in the movie that were nowhere in the book. The sad scene of Paul stumbling around singing "For Once In My Life" in a drunken stupor was nowhere in the book....and again we are reminded that Otis had not much if any say-so in how his book was used, abused or re-written to make the movie. Blame DePasse if we want to, once Otis signed the rights away to his book, he lost any control over how things were depicted. He wasn't the one saying David was pushed out of a car in the street in front of the hospital, I don't think...but that is indelible in our minds for David's death... things like that that are taken as trashing David.

Keres asked how this thread turned out to be about Otis, again....

Keres...its ALL about Otis, didn't you know that? Seriously, every thread around here seems to end up taking Otis to task for something, and MY only reason for even bringing Otis's name into this thread is to show that HE DIDN'T START IT, with talking about the personal business. He wrote in his book information that was already out there, and if it wasn't COMMON knowledge, Mike, it WAS public knowledge, it was in a public newspaper, maybe more than one. He wasn't telling personal SECRETS, none of this stuff was secret, for goodness sakes. I don't think Eddie was wrong for what he said in the article, and I don't think Otis was wrong for repeating it 15 years later. IMO. which I'm entitled to just as everybody else is entitled to theirs.

[Aba21]

Right Kallisa, no one wants to accept the fact he had little or no creative control in that movie. The title Executive Producer was just that a title only. They may have asked him how the steps looked or if the clothes looked right but as far as plot..............that was out of his hands.

[kalisa2]

MikeNYC said:

Why would Otis write that he was going to say more ,now that David & Eddie are dead?

What more did he actually say about David and Eddie, once they were dead, Mike? You keep bringing that up, what was it he actually said that wasn't in the first edition?

What was the purpose in doing that? What's wrong,nobody wanna touch this with a ten foot pole? Is the question too hard? Maybe because I'm right and there's no getting around that FACT? If these things that Y'all say concerning Otis' right to tell whatever he wants to is what you really believe...why the silence?
Not even Ivory can even attempt to explain that one away. I'm just glad nobody's trying to tell me that Otis never said anything near what I give him credit for?

Since I don't have my book handy, I have chosen not to address this question. Since your obsessing on it, please give us examples of what he said in the revised edition about Eddie and David.

Why do you keep bringing it up, is it an attempt to direct attention away from the question that has been asked and chosen not to answer?

i.e.

1) Why is Otis a worse person than Eddie for saying the same things Eddie said, AFTER Eddie said them? Don't give me the "it was in a tiny little local publication" lame EXCUSE cuz you don't know if it went further than Detroit Free Press or not, I haven't seen proof that this article was even DFP, it probably got picked up by the national news services since McRib's mom has never been to Detroit, and Aba wasn't in Detroit when Paul died. They heard it nationally, and some of that national information probably came from what Eddie and/or others said when interviewed after Paul died. The fact is, Eddie said it to a reporter, for public consumption, knew it would be printed and read, and apparently didn't think anything malicious about it. Why does Otis constantly get hanged for spilling personal business that was public knowledge?