|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 1, 2004 14:40:04 GMT -5
... Mrs. Columbo, here!  And what about the plans of Dennis, Eddie and David to team up as a group? What does Paul's death have to with Dennis, David and Eddie forming a group. Dennis was still a Temptation then. Am I missing something here!  |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 1, 2004 14:42:24 GMT -5
No. I was jumping a bit! I was thinking about the links between David's suspicious death and Paul's. I am sorry. That remark was just a spontaneous outburst ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 1, 2004 14:44:23 GMT -5
Anna, just so I'm clear, are you or are you not giving Eddie the same blame as O for talking about Paul's problems? Or does O get MORE blame because he brought it up, years later and in a book for proffit?
What if Eddie was the first person to speak about Paul's problems to the general public? (which I obviously don't know, I'm speaking in hypotheticals) Does he bear any blame?
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 1, 2004 14:59:08 GMT -5
Alcoholism is a sickness just like drug addicition. I don't care if its self-inflicted its still a sickness. I'm not gonna get into the counting how many drinks it took simply because the article says at one point he was drinking 2/5 of conac a day. If that ain't heavy drinking, I don't know what is. I am only saying on my part the man drank period. I don't care how much or when. He drank and its time to move on somewhere else and just get over the fact that he did. I am not blaming Paul for any wrong doing at all. Nor am I trying to make him look bad in any way but we should be able to talk about these things and not have a debate over the one thing that is for sure......and that is he did drink. But you can't quote Eddie as to saying how much he drank. Seems to me,Eddie was the only one to try to help Paul. This from a man that was said was "diffucult" to work with. I never said that YOU were trying to make Paul look bad.I know better than that.Truth be told,YOU show respect to all tempts. Especially the six who made this board possible. You never lose sight of that. ![]() temptsinfo.com/smilies/wtg.gif![]() As for moving on...isn't this a discussion? If an interesting article as this gets posted,aren't we supposed to discuss it? Why limit the discussion? Yes,I have questions about the "reports" of the member's "problems" due to the fact that not all of the member's "Problems" seem to be open for discussion. Just the one's who are no longer with us...and Dennis'. Can't let that get by...I don't care what is thought of me...FAIR is....FAIR! So,we either get all members "problems" discussed,or NONE of the members'Problems should be discussed. What's good for one ...is good for all....sans the "cornflakes",or "Not knowing the person that we are discussing". To me,that's a bunch of crap! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 1, 2004 15:08:09 GMT -5
Anna, just so I'm clear, are you or are you not giving Eddie the same blame as O for talking about Paul's problems? Or does O get MORE blame because he brought it up, years later and in a book for proffit? What if Eddie was the first person to speak about Paul's problems to the general public? (which I obviously don't know, I'm speaking in hypotheticals) Does he bear any blame? Truth be told..he wasn't. Again,you are trying to say things that are not said. But,again...you said "PROFIT" meaning a motive...which is MONEY ! Why bring this up? Truth of the matter is...it was not Otis' place to put their business out in the street like he did. Then,don't be man enough to say these things when they are alive! That's what I take exception to,and that what you keep ducking.He said in his revised book that he left some things out...and now that Eddie & David are dead..he feels "brave" enough to say them. Why you don't tell us your thoughts on that classless admission? Unless you agree? Which is your right...but it just don't make it right. This is not hypothetic at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 1, 2004 15:37:39 GMT -5
Anna, just so I'm clear, are you or are you not giving Eddie the same blame as O for talking about Paul's problems? Or does O get MORE blame because he brought it up, years later and in a book for proffit? What if Eddie was the first person to speak about Paul's problems to the general public? (which I obviously don't know, I'm speaking in hypotheticals) Does he bear any blame? ... That comes quite close I think. Eddie apparently tried to find an explanation for something he could not understand. It was only a week after Paul's death and he described Paul as a strong person who pulled himself together many, many times. A man who knew what struggle meant ... "“I’ve seen Paul Williams every way imaginable - drunk, ecstatic, furious, down and out. Every time he dropped I would be there to help him back up. He would have done it for me. His comeback was my fight. I thought I was winning until they called me. “I’ll never really understand how he could have done it. The Paul Williams I saw last week was the one I grew up with in Alabama. I thought sure he was back to his old self." Eddie sounds very much like a person in mourning, looking for the part/guilt he had in the tragedy when he says,"But I guess in the end even I didn’t really know him.” Eddie does not, in my opinion, stress the negative aspects of Paul's "case" but shows the side of Paul that was fighting against his weakness. Of course, that's my very personal interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 1, 2004 16:26:10 GMT -5
To me it no longer becomes a discussion when we get bogged down at the same place all the time. I can accept almost any explenation of the events since I wasn't there but sometimes these discussions take a wrong turn and then they no longer sound like discussions.
I agree that Eddie was trying to help Paul. I'm sure some others were as well. But the discussion ends for me at the point where he drank because that has been proven to be true. I will never know how much and like I said it really doesn't matter cause drinking is not the story of Paul Williams.
Once again I say if there are things to be talked about concerning Otis that we haven't discussed, put em' up here. I will discuss em'! ;D One thing I will say.........if otis missed any shows because of a hospitalized illness then that is a valid reason to miss a show or rehearsal. If a person missed for the other reasons we talk about even though they are illnesses, they are self-inflicted and not excusable unless that person admitted himself for treatment of said illness instead of attending a show or rehearsal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Temptress on Jul 1, 2004 22:19:42 GMT -5
I really don't know what the real story is with Paul. But if Eddie couldn't help Paul surely Otis couldn't.........I think Eddie helped Paul as much as he could. I believe that Paul was depressed...... I am torn about what happen with him. You can help people but *it is up to them to help themselves*. As far as Otis is concerned. He had problems too......In the book he admitted to being High on stage once... like that was the only time .......come on O ;D.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 1, 2004 22:38:43 GMT -5
What is so wrong with admitting (or accepting) that Paul had a problem with alcohol, which exacerbated his illness? Lots of people do. There are very many very talented people who have other shortcomings/character flaws, it doesn't take away from their talent. If Eddie, who was Paul's closest friend can admit/accept that, why can't some of you? |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 1, 2004 22:39:14 GMT -5
I would say Paul's behavior as described by Eddie and elswhere could be one of the typical signs for suicidal thoughts. Suicidal people often tend to be kind of happy shortly before they kill themselves. They believe that they have found a way out of their misery and therefore are somewhat relieved. Also, they tend to write letters (not the tyoical: "I killed myself because ...") to friends and relatives and get their belongings etc. in order. The family usually misinterprets such actions as signs of improvement in the mental status while in reality it is a warning sign. What makes me question the suicide theory is the fact that (elsewhere) it is mentioned that he held the gun in the wrong hand and that, had he really shot himself, his hand had not lain on his lap. Having followed the story of the basketball player ?? Williams, who accidentially shot his limo driver, I almost would like to think that maybe Paul had been shot elsewhere and the suicide was only staged to cover up an accident Yeah, yeah! Here I go again. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 1, 2004 23:00:40 GMT -5
McRibs. I think it is so difficult for some of us to have these weaknesses thrown in our faces everytime these people are mentioned. I can understand that Eddie talked about Paul's problem in the process of making sense of the contradicting facts. But I cannot understand that after years and years Paul's alcoholism should have been portrayed in such a humiliating manner as in the movie, for example. That was not necessary, in my opinion. We would probably have enjoyed it more had we seen more of his dancing or singing, for example. It just didn't sit right with many of us ... They (O. and the film team) should not have allowed the alcoholism issue to take up that much space. Just my opinion.
If O couldn't bear the thought of having Melvin's death shown as it really happened, how do you think Paul's and David's families must have felt?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 1, 2004 23:31:03 GMT -5
McRibs. I think it is so difficult for some of us to have these weaknesses thrown in our faces everytime these people are mentioned. I can understand that Eddie talked about Paul's problem in the process of making sense of the contradicting facts. But I cannot understand that after years and years Paul's alcoholism should have been portrayed in such a humiliating manner as in the movie, for example. That was not necessary, in my opinion. We would probably have enjoyed it more had we seen more of his dancing or singing, for example. It just didn't sit right with many of us ... They (O. and the film team) should not have allowed the alcoholism issue to take up that much space. Just my opinion. Anna: Knowing the little bit that I do about the film industry, I can promise you that Otis had very little to do with what made it into the movie and how it was dramatized. The screenwriters would not have conferred with Otis before changing the facts, or hyperbolizing the facts. I am sure that the whole piece was painful to all of the families involved, but I don't think you can hold Otis responsible for that. He is responsible for the book the movie was based on, yes, but not the movie. I don't think that Paul's drinking problem was overstated in the book, but it certainly took center stage in the movie. I think David's ego was made out to be more of an issue in the movie than the drugs, until the just before the end. I think it is our responsibility as fans to not lose sight of the fact that these were flawed human beings, as we all are, but ones who were just blessed with incredible talents. Nothing that any of them did during the course of their lives can take that away. Including Otis! |
|
Elbridge
Tempt Fanatic
Elbridge "Al" Bryant
Posts: 28
|
Post by Elbridge on Jul 1, 2004 23:44:09 GMT -5
McRibs is totally right on this one. The title "Executive Producer" can mean anything and nothing at all. Most often, it means nothing. When screenwriters get a hold of a book, they do not have to confer with the authors about what they feel like changing. They have (you knew this was coming) "dramatic license" on their side. It's all entertainment.
Ed
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivory Fair on Jul 2, 2004 8:25:24 GMT -5
How do you show it any other way? It's alcoholism, it's a humiliating illness. If they had totally ignored it, then folks would have complained saying the movie was too kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 2, 2004 10:21:49 GMT -5
McRibs, Ed, Ivory. Of course, I see your points. What I think, though, is that O had managed to spare his own feelings when writing the book and participating in the series production. Melvin's suffering was not put right in front of him as for example Paul's emptying a bottle of cognac or shooting himself in outmost despair wass put right in front of his family. So, O was able to save his own hide, at least ...
|
|
