MovieChat Forums > Michael Imperioli Discussion > Says “bigots and homophobes” can’t watch...

Says “bigots and homophobes” can’t watch his work

posted 2 years ago by jk90us (8324)
27 replies | jump to latest

Based on a recent Supreme Court ruling giving businesses the right to refuse service to anyone they choose after a woman refused to serve gay customers, Imperioli has decided that he can similarly prevent certain people from seeing his work.

https://www.avclub.com/michael-imperioli-supreme-court-sopranos-ban-1850600270

Posting on Instagram, he said he has decided to ban all “bigots and homophobes from watching The Sopranos, The White Lotus, Goodfellas, or any movie or TV show” he has been in.

So how exactly is he going to stop them from watching? And the producers sure as hell don’t care who watches because it means more revenue.

Also, racism and homophobia, and especially sexism, ran rampant through the Sopranos, which makes him a hypocrite, doesn’t it?

[–] alexjohans0n (2094) 2 years ago

This will blow up and he will be on the losing end with less work coming in.

[–] Callahan7 (1206) 2 years ago

Be careful on Social Media Michael.

This was not smart.

I liked you until I saw this Instagram message that became a news story. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

I bet he regrets sending this post.

[–] nyctc7 (44119) 2 years ago

He 'clarifies his remarks' - https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/michael-imperioli-clarifies-remarks-forbidding-160127814.html

What he clarifies is that he is clearly a moron (and I'm a huge Sopranos fan)

[–] jk90us (8324) 2 years ago

The old “wait, did I say that out loud” defense. 🙄

[–] BeaSouth (3567) 2 years ago

I don’t know what he expected the Supreme Court to do. To me, the situation is analogous to a studio coming to him and insisting he play some character that offends his sensibilities. Perhaps I could tighten the analogy by making the hypothetical project a government sponsored public service ad. I’m assuming he naturally reserves for himself the freedom to decline when he disagrees with the message. Pretty elitist denying someone the same freedom in a less powerful line of work.

[–] Stratego (31087) 2 years ago

"To me, the situation is analogous to a studio coming to him and insisting he play some character that offends his sensibilities. Perhaps I could tighten the analogy by making the hypothetical project a government sponsored public service ad. I’m assuming he naturally reserves for himself the freedom to decline when he disagrees with the message."

Exactly. I don't get why these people fail to understand that.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

They *refuse* to understand it..

[–] Kendricks (2241) 2 years ago

Yeah, what an absolute moron extraordinaire.
Imagine being outraged over bakers not being forced to bake cakes for homo weddings.
Pretends like this is such a big deal and while he acts as if he cares about this, he completely shits on the rights of people to JUST SAY NO TO THINGS.

You do not even need a reason. It's called freedom of speech you fucking imbecile.
What, he wanna force someone at gunpoint to bake some cake?
Like in that one Sopranos episode where he wants to get some pastries?

Go fuck yourself you virtue signalling imbecile.

As for that dumb article itself:
"Of the many bizarre and offensive rulings the Supreme Court has made lately—seemingly all of which are designed to hurt the most vulnerable and underrepresented people in society"
Excuse me what!? xD

That supreme court ruling was great and important, first of all.
Second, "most vulnerable and underrepresented people in society"? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
THESE GUYS JUST GOT A WHOLE FUCKING MONTH DEDICATED TO THEM WHERE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING DID THY BIDDING AND CATERED TO THEM LIKE THEY'RE GREEK GODS DEMANDING SACRIFICES!
UNDERREPRESENTED my ass!

So sick and tired of this rainbow bullshit, oh my God!

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

LOL, Nice novel. Loser

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

LOL, Nice novel incel. Loser

[–] Kendricks (2241) 2 years ago

Oh look! It's the resident retard who calls other people incels and losers and here he is, unable to form just a single coherent sentence consisting of 5 words.

Remember to take your medication and swallow your spit before it runs out of your mouth again, okay?

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

Five words but he did manage to get two punctuation marks in. Worth something, no?

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

5 words but did manage to trigger you magat hillbillies lolololololol.

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

Better than writing an hinged bigoted novel on a floundering racist message board. LOSER

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

Angry at the world cause you are a mutant who cant get laid. HAHAHAHHA 'merica!

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

Excellent and thoughtful posts. You've acquitted yourself quite well.

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

Exactly like…..you! Morons like you are so oblivious to the irony hahahahahaha

[–] Kendricks (2241) 2 years ago

You're deflecting again.
Also I am not American.

[–] Cac1981 (331) 2 years ago

Settle down triggered little virgin. Clearly you don’t know what deflecting even means. Good try though , Champ!

[–] Where (1606) 2 years ago

He was making a rhetorical point. Under this new world SCOTUS is creating, any self-proclaimed artist can arguably refuse to perform for anyone based on any religious belief or spurious superstition.

The Sopranos was in part about exposing the frailties and flaws of mob criminals. He played (as in acting) one of the most sad and morally bankrupt characters.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

Under this new world SCOTUS is creating, any self-proclaimed artist can arguably refuse to perform for anyone based on any religious belief or spurious superstition.

Which is the way it should be. No one person can say what exactly constitutes "spurious superstition".

We're not talking about tax payer based or emergency or infrastructure services here, we're talking about the rights of private people to believe what they want and do business with who they want, no matter how I feel about it. Augusta National want's to keep my black ass out of their club? Fine. As long as they don't get any of my tax dollars it's none of my business.

Besides, let the market sort it out. If a baker doesn't want to make a cake decorated with a gay couple, then the gay couple can go to a baker that will. Should we force Jewish bakers to make cakes decorated with Swastikas?

[–] Where (1606) 2 years ago

The folks who pushed this case also want those emergency and infrastructure services to be privatized.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

First, it's unlikely, and second, even if they did, it has exactly zero to do with first.

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 2 years ago

He was making a rhetorical point. Under this new world SCOTUS is creating, any self-proclaimed artist can arguably refuse to perform for anyone based on any religious belief or spurious superstition.

An artist does have that right. He is allowed to perform, or not perform for any reason he wants. His example is flawed because he’s just talking about discriminating against the audience and it completely misses the point.

[–] WandererFromYs (2406) 2 years ago

It’s not a good comparison, as he doesn’t have controls over who views his movies.

A better comparison would be if he would offered a movie role he was morally opposed to, and the law said he could not refuse it.

[–] liscarkat (19447) 2 years ago

I've never had any interest in seeing any of the crap this clown is in, anyway, so even though he probably would think I'm a bigot (by his asinine standards), it won't affect me.

[–] strntz (12773) 2 years ago

The Sopranos is an interesting watch.

Let's not forget that the average actor's detachment from reality makes them particularly well suited to playing make believe. IOW, their use is entertainment and not for looking to for guidance on anything that requires the understanding of reality.

[–] GreenGoblinsOck8 (7994) 2 years ago

I find it funny he told people they have no right to watch Goodfellas when he's only in it for 2 minutes.