They're marketing this movie as the 50th "anniversary" of Sharon Tate's death. Does anyone else find this a little disturbing?
Especially with Tarantino embroiled in this #metoo stuff, mistreating Uma Thurman on set...it's all a bit sick that they're just going to make a glorified true story about the murder of a woman like this.
Yes, this thing will be a travesty. Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Voytek Frykowski, Abigail Folger, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca, Rosemary LaBianca, Donald Shea, Gary Hinman, Bernard Crowe..... all of Manson's victims and their families deserved better than their loved ones slaughter used as fodder for an over glorified film that does nothing to honour the victims, only capitalize on the killers who to this day still strive to get out of prison.
shareInteresting.
shareI already have my ticket for the premiere next week so I'll see then and don't want to assume anything... but it seems to me like the murders will only be a background story anyways.
shareOP: so you'd have no movies that reference any crimes, disasters or wars, claiming they're "unethical"? Get a life.
shareOP: so you find every film that references a crime, disaster or war to be "unethical"? Get a life.
shareAfter watching the film, it seems like quite a stretch to say that its capitalizing on the murders. In fact, the murders are a very small subplot when compared to the rest of the film and can barely be called a part of the actual story, IMO. The lead character just so happens to live next door and out of a nearly three hour runtime spread out over 6 months or so, there's very little in the way of "focus" on the murders...definitely not enough to consider this movie an effort to capitalize on them.
Was it ethical for Spielberg to capitalize on the Holocaust with Shindler's List?
Do you see how dumb your question is now?
ND