|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 2, 2004 12:18:05 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 Ed, I have been beating this point over people's head since the day I got on this board. But when people have a set agenda against someone they can't see the forest for the trees. No one is trying hold Otis blameless in this. You may not like his business practices but that has nothing to do with the personal problems of the members of the group. Are you saying that Otis bad business decisions made Paul start to drink? I don't think so. If there is something about Otis that you know he didn't talk about in the movie and book, then put it on here for discussion. Other wise stop guessing about what he did or didn't say and face the fact that you can not blame one person for all the other's problems. If Eddie said it before it was in Otis book..is he blameless? Look.......none of this is anybody's business at all and none of us have a thing to do with the way it went down or the results of what happenend. Many others have looked at this situation have accepted that things didn't work out for the group and so changes were made.Do you need a scapegoat to satisfy your belief in what you think happenend? How many of you have read the Star and National Enquior? If you get a Sunday paper or stand in line at the grocery store, you have read one. You're lying if you say you haven't!!! ;D ;D THey make their money talking about other people's dirt. Ain't nobody buying a book that doesn't say anything. And for most of you I believe that is what you wished anyway. He shouldn't have written the book in your eyes. Well he did so get over it.....it isn't the first "tell something" book, cause he didn't tell it all, and it won't be the last. He wrote a book and if he hadn't you would have nothing at all from any member of the group. And yet you would still have the David drug stories and the Paul drinking stories without the book cause they were there. What I'm saying is Paul in an individual case separate from anything Otis had to do with. If his friend Eddie couldn't stop him from drinking what was Otis supposed to do? Paul's situation was an intergral part of the story of the Temptations. If Otis had left it out t,here would be complaints that he didn't tell the whole story. What about Paul's illness? He didn't say anything about that? Personaly, I'm glad he wrote the book. Without it we would have nothing except books by hangers-on and people on the side. I don't have to believe everything he wrote and I don't have to blame him cause he wrote it. |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 2, 2004 13:09:20 GMT -5
"How many of you have read the Star and National Enquior? If you get a Sunday paper or stand in line at the grocery store, you have read one. You're lying if you say you haven't!!! THey make their money talking about other people's dirt." :banghead  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 2, 2004 13:15:35 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. Show the good things,show the success that Paul had instead of bending over backwards to show him at his alledged worst. Other than folks that read the local Detroit Free Press,his acholism was not public knowledge. Hell, a lot of people didn't know that he even existed,until the movie came out. So, what would people have base that view of complaining that the movie was too kind? When they did the movie on ELVIS,they didn't show him od'ed on the toilet...did they? I didn't hear anyone protest that they didn't show that. I'm sorry,you just can't justify bad taste and total disrespect. No other way to look at it. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 2, 2004 13:17:04 GMT -5
"How many of you have read the Star and National Enquior? If you get a Sunday paper or stand in line at the grocery store, you have read one. You're lying if you say you haven't!!! THey make their money talking about other people's dirt."  I don't understand. Are you saying no one reads these rags? You may not but millions do every week. My point was only to illustrate that what sells is dirt. Doesn't mean I approve, it's just a fact of like. |
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 2, 2004 13:21:16 GMT -5
Show the good things,show the success that Paul had instead of bending over backwards to show him at his alledged worst. Other than folks that read the local Detroit Free Press,his acholism was not public knowledge. Hell, a lot of people didn't know that he even existed,until the movie came out. So, what would people have base that view of complaining that the movie was too kind? When they did the movie on ELVIS,they didn't show him od'ed on the toilet...did they? I didn't hear anyone protest that they didn't show that. I'm sorry,you just can't justify bad taste and total disrespect. No other way to look at it. Mike, you knew about it and I knew about it and we don'tlive in Detroit. And many other people like us knew as well.....who's bending over backwards to make him look bad........I don't see that. Continuing to talk about it every day is worse than what Otis wrote in his book. |
|
|
|
Post by kalisa2 on Jul 2, 2004 13:21:18 GMT -5
Show the good things,show the success that Paul had instead of bending over backwards to show him at his alledged worst. Other than folks that read the local Detroit Free Press,his acholism was not public knowledge. Hell, a lot of people didn't know that he even existed,until the movie came out. So, what would people have base that view of complaining that the movie was too kind? When they did the movie on ELVIS,they didn't show him od'ed on the toilet...did they? I didn't hear anyone protest that they didn't show that. I'm sorry,you just can't justify bad taste and total disrespect. No other way to look at it. Mikey...Paul's alcoholism (and illness) had direct bearing on why he left the group. Was Otis just supposed to say "Paul left the group" end of story, after detailing his successes and good points with the group? If everything were hunky-dory with Paul, why did he leave? Please be logical. |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 2, 2004 13:21:57 GMT -5
Of course, I do. ;D But why treat one kind of dirt different than another one? You know as well as I do, Aba, that these tabloids are to be considered the lowest form of entertainment right after porn ... So are some kinds of books, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 2, 2004 13:30:16 GMT -5
Of course, I do. ;D But why treat one kind of dirt different than another one? You know as well as I do, Aba, that these tabloids are to be considered the lowest form of entertainment right after porn ... So are some kinds of books, in my opinion. That's fine and I agree..but are you telling me you learned not one thing from what Otis wrote? Would you rather believe what Geena says or what TOny Turner says as opposed to one who was there from the beginning. Are you saying that every word in that book is a lie? Why shouldn't the book have been written? I wanted to know more about the Temptations and I learned a few things from the book that I didn't know. Hell, I didn't think he would win a pulitzer prize for the thing............but it's more than we had before now and right now the only thing we have from anyone in the group. When somebody else in the group writes something , then we'll have two. ;D ;D |
|
|
|
Post by ZeldaFScott on Jul 2, 2004 13:34:48 GMT -5
I don't say everything in the book is a lie. I am in no position to do so. I simply hate the muck raking ... And I don't believe everything I read elsewhere. One thing I do, though, is compare the different accounts of the same situation. Doing this helps me toform my own opinion ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Aba21 on Jul 2, 2004 13:42:42 GMT -5
I don't say everything in the book is a lie. I am in no position to do so. I simply hate the muck raking ... And I don't believe everything I read elsewhere. One thing I do, though, is compare the different accounts of the same situation. Doing this helps me toform my own opinion ... And that, I hope is what we all do, Anna. |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 2, 2004 15:28:48 GMT -5
Mike, you knew about it and I knew about it and we don'tlive in Detroit. And many other people like us knew as well.....who's bending over backwards to make him look bad........I don't see that. Continuing to talk about it every day is worse than what Otis wrote in his book. The people who made the movie,and the book. Like I said, alot of folks didn't even know that these men existed ,especially Paul,while they were alive. The fact that ,in the revised book,Otis makes a point to say that now that Eddie & David are dead,he can say more,that he didn't say before. That is bending over backwards,and there is nothing that anyone can say to justify this statement. Hell,you can't make like that's not in the revised book,can you? The terms "Executive Producer" and "Docudrama" are just thinly vailed excuses to trash people and get away with it. I guess the fact that Paul's kids weren't even 12 years old when he was killed don't matter to folks,huh? To me ,that's the saddest part in this story that very few think that this type of action is OK. Truth be told,it's not. Like I said before,it wasn't even common knowledge that the group was an R&B act. It sucks.BIGTIME!!! |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 2, 2004 15:38:35 GMT -5
Mikey...Paul's alcoholism (and illness) had direct bearing on why he left the group. Was Otis just supposed to say "Paul left the group" end of story, after detailing his successes and good points with the group? If everything were hunky-dory with Paul, why did he leave? Please be logical. Kalisa,who says that Otis had to say anything about PAUL"S personal life? Did Otisknow ,or anyone else for that matter, know for sure that Paul was not ill before the alledged ALCHOLISM? Please be logical and real |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 2, 2004 15:48:18 GMT -5
I don't say everything in the book is a lie. I am in no position to do so. I simply hate the muck raking ... And I don't believe everything I read elsewhere. One thing I do, though, is compare the different accounts of the same situation. Doing this helps me toform my own opinion ... Good answer,I don't believe the book is all lies....just 99.44/100% of it is lies...Not the whole thing.  |
|
|
|
Post by MikeNYC on Jul 2, 2004 15:55:02 GMT -5
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! McRibs...let's not lose sight that everyone has flaws,nobody is saying that they didn't,and you must include Otis in that mix...and his was not and is not discussed. I like what you said about the movie centering more on David's alledged ego..than his drug use...Seems like we saw the same movie. Not everybody saw the same movie. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by mcribs on Jul 2, 2004 19:04:30 GMT -5
McRibs...let's not lose sight that everyone has flaws,nobody is saying that they didn't,and you must include Otis in that mix...and his was not and is not discussed. ;D I don't really know that much about Otis to be able to discuss his character flaws. Maybe we'll have more to talk about after Richard's book comes out... :sleepy: I recall that in his book he implied (without directly stating) an adulterous affair or two, he obviously has trouble staying married (and who doesn't ;D), he admitted a few instances of experimenting with drugs, but really his most serious character flaw is that he did not look out for the best interests of his bandmates. That's not NEARLY as scintillating as Paul's and David's issues. Now, if you want to come up with something with more meat, we'll talk it to death. :laughing |
|
