Posted on 08/12/2011 11:59:29 AM PDT by woofie
Thanks.
I was running through my mind trying to remember the film.
His resume on IMDB belies your assertion. From what is written there, he's had 2 to 3 gigs per year, every year since he started acting professionally in 1978.
So he needs to keep quiet about known pedophiles so that he can provide for his child? What kind of logic is that...I'll guarantee you if I had knowledge of pedophiles operating that I will provide their names and dare them to sue me. He's talking as if he has intimate knowledge...if it happened to him, he needs to come clean and make sure the perverts are locked up and away from other kids.
I never forgave him for feeding the Gremlins after midnight.
Not sorry to say, but I never saw that flick.
Are you a parent?
It’s one thing for you to be hoisted on a petard, doing the right thing, but it is an entirely different thing when you might have to do that to your family as well.
I do find it interesting that, when Hollywood actors are asked if they would let their children act, the vast majority say that under no circumstances say they will let their children act.
Look at all the defenders of Polanski that are out there. She was 13. He was 43.
The story of Rock Hudson includes pool parties in Hollywood where homosexual male actors were provided countless underage boys to have sex with.
This story is 100% TRUE.
Perhaps that’s why such a high percentage of child stars end up so messed up!
...There’s decadence eveywhere. Just a difference of degrees...
Look more closely at those gigs. Shorts, low-budget straight-to-video junk, cameos. The best gig he's had in the last 15 years was a run doing a voice on an animated series. He'd be lucky to get $1000 an episode for that. $600 is more typical. And his agent takes 10% of that. I'll be generous and say he works in Hollywood enough to keep his SAG insurance, but that's about it.
Well with all the homosexuals in Hollywierd, this certainly isn’t a surprise!
BTTT
Copy and email this article to everyone you know. The reverence for film industry celebrities has got to be ended as much as possible.
LIberal town.
Interestingly, the "working inhumane hours" trope was once valid -- but is no longer.
Nowadays, child actors on a commercial set cannot be asked to work longer than something like three hours per day. And not more than 45 minutes at a time (check union rules for precise information). The off-hours are scheduled for play, school, meals, snacks whatever. It's a rigid regime.
However, one of the guys I cast (as a senior citizen) had been a child actor from the thirties...and we became close friends. He recounted his experience as a child actor: yeah, it was long hours -- but it wasn't "inhumane" and it wasn't "abusive"; "We all worked long hours in those days".
And he was never exposed to "perversion".
Hollywood is a lot different today...
Wasn’t the “notorious drug addict and drunk” his frequent co-star Corey Haim, who died a few years back?
Two things that came out of the reformation of labour laws for child actors was that and the fact that the child is only allowed to have a moderate stipend from his earnings until he reaches 18 and nobody else can touch his earnings.
“Shirley Temple quit the acting business at age ten and went on to grow up and live a normal life.”
I don’t know about that. She became a politician.
The third thing that came out of that was that it is mandated that they are supposed to get an education as well.
Drugs killed Haim, but Feldman has admitted being a heroin addict for years. He’s supposedly clean now, but the damage to his reputation (and insurability) was done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.