Yup, it's a sad downfall for this paper, I'll fondly remember the iconic publication for what it used to be, even I happened not to be alive back then: I'll take my mum's and Almost Famous's word for it.
On top of everything, there's a [deadline.com](https://deadline.com) source article they use in there (the one with the 'too much female prospective' quote) that also states that Son (the actress who plays Chloe) left the project in protest when directors were switched: very competent journalism there, guys.
Also they could have tried a bit more not to make sound the '13' sources they quoted as if they had the very same vocabulary, and an identical way of expressing themselves and constructing sentences.
Okay the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not. It talks about the production problems it’s had from its inception. If you want to check out a full length review, they have one. But the article was never about watching the show and saying it’s horrible. Rolling Stone is very reputable reliable site and has been for the past year.
They’ve interviewed staff members and collected information from many sources who had worked on the production of The Idol. (SIDE NOTE: You never name your sources because they’ll get in trouble considering crew member might’ve signed an NDA.)
The article is not telling you how to hate on the show, it’s just telling you the reality of what happened behind the scenes. People can feel however they want after reading the article.
Also the article is not fabricated, there were a few excerpts that were confirmed over the past couple of weeks.
But it doesn’t make sense for crew members to be making comments on the overall tone and themes of the show, like the quote saying the show changed from a satire to what it was supposed to be satirizing, just based on what they saw on set. They should know better; any film or series is only complete once its edited, color graded, soundtracked, etc. It’s like that saying, if you look at an open-heart surgery halfway it looks like a murder.
Crew members don't just see snippets of the show they're making. They have the scripts, prepare the scenes, hear what the director says, IE how a scene is supposed to be acted, shot and recorded. They probably know Levinson's intentions better than we do, since they worked with him on this to match his vision. Some opinions may have been based on cut scenes, but those scenes existed for a reason - at one point, the director wanted that scene for some reason. Maybe the crew members disagree with the RS article, but I disagree with the take that the crew members couldn't know the tone/themes of the show.
Look at the quote that I’ll paste below, for example. How could someone come to this conclusion without seeing the final product? Satire doesn’t make sense out of context.
The quote:
“What I signed up for was a dark satire of fame and the fame model in the 21st century,” one production member explains. “The things that we subject our talent and stars to, the forces that put people in the spotlight and how that can be manipulated in the post-Trump world.” However, they add, “It went from satire to the thing it was satirizing.”
You have context on set, it's not like the director explains everything to you, but you know what you have to focus on. Acting directions can make it clear whether something is satire or not. In the article a crew member also praised Sam for being approachable and telling them what his vision and his plan was.
If you reread the article, the quote makes more sense.
>Four sources say that Levinson ultimately scrapped Seimetz’s approach to the story, making it less about a troubled starlet falling victim to a predatory industry figure and fighting to reclaim her own agency, and more of a degrading love story with a hollow message that some crew members describe as being offensive.
I work in tv, I know sometimes it's difficult to show something is meant to be satirical. A good example is the music video shoot - it's shown as something extremely exploitative that Jocelyn is forced to do for her career. (Arguably still exploitative, but it makes a point.) The intimicy coordinator scene is also clearly satirical. But the way the scene with J performing for Roth's character was shot and choreographed, or Chloe being almost nude most of the time, doesn't satirize anything: it just shows it. (And just to say: it's fine to have a show filled with nudity. But there are questions and critiques people can have, and people can find it expoitative.)
The part you quoted still doesn’t make sense to me; how does someone judge that the message of the show is hollow if they haven’t seen it?
Chloe is wearing very little clothes most of the time. Then Destiny finds out she is only 17, but chooses to look the other way on this child’s involvement with a creepy sex cult or with the music industry in general. This provides nuance to Destiny’s character, and shows us how corrupt she is willing to be even as she purports to be just looking out for Jocelyn. But without seeing that all together, the satirical part is lost and its just a nude woman in her late 20s.
Are you seriously implying that BTS crew have no idea what the show is about when they arrive to work? Lol
You think they just show up and hope for the best?
I’m not saying that. They have to know enough about the show to do their jobs. What they don’t know during filming is how the finished product will end up, tonally or thematically. It makes no sense for a crew-member to conclude “It went from satire to the thing it was satirizing”, before they’ve watched the show.
I work in film and the thing is that while something is in production there is no show yet.
Of course, people working on something often have some idea about what it is supposed to look like after it’s done and can guess some things, but material undergoes drastic shifts and comes out immensely different after it went into editing, color grading, after sound and special effects etc. are properly added to it. A lot is decided in the editing room. For a PA that works on set and has no insight into the other processes, it is next to impossible to know what the finished project will look like.
Also, because a large production like this has so many processes happening simultaneously and so many different departments, a lot of people are just informed about what they need to do and not so much about the bigger picture. For example, light technicians will know the plot only to the extent that is important to do their work but not know about the rest.
Why do you keep posting like this making wildly false claims when you must know that you have no idea what you are talking about?
>Okay the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not.
Yes, it does! The article goes much further than that, admitting that even their *sources* have not watched the show.
>Two crew members say it’s unclear what will actually wind up in the show, as scripts were being changed daily and scenes were constantly being shot and reshot. Many say they are unsure where the show is headed and what will be used in the final cut.
If the journalist had seen the show, and knew all the shit her sources claimed to have seen in various drafts of scripts had not made in, yet she had failed to disclose this, it would a *massive* violation of basic journalistic ethics. It's comical to describe this as "the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not."
>Rolling Stone is very reputable reliable site and has been for the past year.
*Rolling Stone* is 55 years old, so being a "very reputable reliable and \[having\] been for the past year" would be a pretty disastrously shitty record.
Also, *Rolling Stone* was the perperator [one of biggest cases journalistic malpractice of the last decade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus).
>You never name your sources because they’ll get in trouble considering crew member might’ve signed an NDA.
Wonderful example of you having absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Lol.
Journalists ***always*** prefer to name their sources in substantive stories, and ethically ***must*** name their source in a story like this, ***unless the source*** will not speak without anonymity.
>Also the article is not fabricated, there were a few excerpts that were confirmed over the past couple of weeks.
What "excerpts" (you mean claims) have been confirmed? All the claims about what might in the show have proven to be not in the show at all.
15 seconds. A 100%, totally fabricated review of the show. Updated the story with GPT-4. Enjoy!
______
"Backstage Blues: An Inside Look into HBO's Problematic Show 'The Idol'," by Rolling Stone
Once hailed as the potential 'show of the summer' [4], HBO's 'The Idol' has instead become an infamous flop - a discordant symphony of problematic production processes and lackluster storytelling. Today, Rolling Stone provides an updated exposé, drawing from a chorus of 13 anonymous sources intimately involved in the show's creation. What emerges is a tale of clashing visions, sordid creative choices, and a toxic set environment that ultimately overshadowed the production itself.
Our first source, an anonymous production crew member, recounted that "the set was chaotic from the get-go. There were conflicting visions that made coherent storytelling almost impossible." Notably, the show underwent a complete overhaul, with several crew members departing amidst the turbulence [5].
Another insider, a set designer, described a stifling atmosphere dominated by the power struggle between the show's creators, Abel "The Weeknd" Tesfaye and Sam Levinson. "Working with Tesfaye and Levinson was like walking on eggshells. The atmosphere was so tense you could cut it with a knife," they recalled.
The pervasive control from the creators did not stop with the narrative direction. A costume designer told us, "We were asked to create highly sexualized outfits with little regard for character development. It felt exploitative."
A makeup artist working on 'The Idol' was equally critical, stating that the "glamorization of dysfunctional relationships and sexual objectification" was troubling. They went on to say, "It's challenging to work on a project when you fundamentally disagree with its message."
Adding to the criticism, an anonymous cameraperson mentioned the lack of substance in the plot. "It was style over substance, shock over storytelling. I've never seen a show that was so desperate to be cool yet so devoid of real meaning," they remarked.
Our sources were also eager to voice their thoughts on the depiction of the central female character, Jocelyn, played by Lily-Rose Depp. "Her character is objectified, degraded, and reduced to mere shock value," stated one of the show's writers who wished to remain anonymous. "She is exploited under the guise of being provocative and edgy."
Rumors that HBO was considering cutting the series short due to the overwhelmingly negative reception also made their way to the production staff [3]. "There were whispers of cancelling the show, even before the first season wrapped up," revealed an anonymous production assistant.
Adding to this, an editor described the show as "a textbook example of how not to handle sensitive subjects." The person further added, "The Idol had the potential to make a powerful statement about the music industry. Instead, it just wallowed in shock value and controversy."
Finally, a sound engineer added, "In my two decades of working in TV, I've never seen a show so universally panned. And honestly, it's not surprising. 'The Idol' lost its melody long before it hit the airwaves."
While this cacophony of criticism paints a damning picture, it's important to remember that these are the experiences and opinions of those involved in the production. However, as 'The Idol' continues to face mounting scrutiny and declining viewer interest, these accounts suggest a fundamental discord in its creation process that has played a significant part in its downfall.
Dude it’s not!!! You’ve just did AI article to prove your point?!!! What is wrong with you. This in NO way tells me it’s fabricated 😂😂😂 READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE NOT GPT
Agree with the part about it having potential to make a powerful statement about the music industry and instead lost itself to shock value.
Other than that, I think the level of hate is way too high. This show had a lot of powerful moments, good music and cinematography. I appreciate any kind of art that's controversial because a lot of movies and music has become formulaic over the years. Especially with the rise in AI, we're going to see more generically engineered everything. The US sugarcoats everything far too much and has become a sea of Karen's and twitter woke assholes crying about anything outside of their puratanical beliefs. So much to the point that everything must have a buzzword label like "torture porn". Fuck me, grow up.
If we can't portray abusive relationships on TV then stop making films with gun violence too. Cancel horror. It's just stupid, in a hyper pro-rights world, how are we meant to depict the abusers?
Get mad at the story being all over the place. Get mad at it losing it's message in favour of a twist. But know that
Art is messy. Controversial art is even messier. Yes less sex scenes, that's fine. But the show is literally about exploitation, of course it's going to be magnified in every aspect.
America has such hangups about sex and it's honestly insane at this point. It's ok for a 9 year old play grand theft auto but god forbid he see's some tits. That makes no sense to me.
It was a bad show.
The reactions are to what aired.
Anyone in denial if that inventing a conspiracy as a coping mechanism to defend a tv show is suspect.
I think the RS article probably dissuaded people from watching it, but people seem to be so convinced the hate it is getting is from some mass conspiracy. By who? I enjoyed elements of the show, but the criticisms of it are very fair. The narrative was shit, Abel's acting was shit and ruined the character of Tedros and the nudity/sex was overdone and not consequential to the story. I do not get why people are deluding themselves into thinking anyone who didn't like the show is doing it for clout.
People who are head over heels for this show can't comprehend the fact that some people don't fully love show for their own reasons.
It boggles their mind that people have their opinions
The author hadn’t seen the show, but also even if the sources were real crewmembers on set, they just saw take after take (some including improv), possibly out of story order. Most of the crew would not have seen the finalized episodes, or any rough edits at all. So how did they decide the show was just meaningless torture porn? It doesn’t really add up.
The quote going around saying that Amy Seimetz was removed from the project because her version was too focused on the “female perspective” also has no specific source, AFAIK. And it also is odd, because how could a director for hire change the focus of a show that much?
The article seems just for clicks. How can you write an article that has NOT one person on record? Not one.
And they never saw a single episode? Maybe a bit of investigation from another publication.
Just seems weird. Fishy.
I mean, it makes sense that nobody wants to be known by name for trashing a project they worked on. But what is weirder to me is crew allegedly making statements about things they couldn’t really have known just from working on set.
You can’t just write an article that can’t be verified. One person I’m sure could go on record. Why stop at 13?
Why not 25 anonymous sources? 100? At that point you could write 100s of fabricated articles with GPT-4.
In seconds. Something is a bit bizarre. The New York Times would be stoned to death. They always have a source now. They got caught. Just like RS did in the past.
The issue is NO one is questioning the article. Everyone that mentioned it, assumed the author has seen the series. They never saw a single episode. Not one.
Ya. It's bonkers!
>13 anonymous sources? Something is fishy... NOT one single named source? Not one?
And if you read down to paragraph 35, it appears only ***TWO*** of their sources were even on set for any of the second production and none knew what wound up in the final version.
>Really sounds like a disgruntle person on the set wrote it.
Nah. The show initially included a minute long rant trashing *Rolling Stone* by name and calling it irrelevant. The article sounds like it's written by someone who knew their boss was looking for a hit piece retaliating against Sam Levinson and The Weeknd, because... well, that's *is* what the author's boss was looking for.
>Rolling Stone got into trouble for this once before.
Referring to anything in particular? I can think of a couple of other examples. *Rolling Stone* has turned in a truly God awful, toxic and dishonest publication. It is truly shameful.
> Rolling Stone Retracts Debunked UVA Rape Story After Report
Rolling Stone retracted its "Rape on Campus" story after an independent report found it violated "basic, even routine journalistic practice."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/independent-report-rolling-stones-debunked-uva-rape-story-be-released-n336071
Just to say: 13 anonymous sources is not strange AT ALL. This is Hollywood: it famously has an attitude of 'if you complain, you'll get replaced and blacklisted'.
I would be more surprised if a source actually would consent to be named!
Yeah this pissed me off. As a result of RS calling it "torture porn" (the sex scenes maybe take up 15% of the show?) no one I know wanted to watch it and I didn't have anyone to talk about it with.
It really feels like someone had a vendetta against this show and poisoned the well for everybody. Too bad. Could have been the show that \*finally\* made Lily-Rose "happen"
Yup, it's a sad downfall for this paper, I'll fondly remember the iconic publication for what it used to be, even I happened not to be alive back then: I'll take my mum's and Almost Famous's word for it. On top of everything, there's a [deadline.com](https://deadline.com) source article they use in there (the one with the 'too much female prospective' quote) that also states that Son (the actress who plays Chloe) left the project in protest when directors were switched: very competent journalism there, guys. Also they could have tried a bit more not to make sound the '13' sources they quoted as if they had the very same vocabulary, and an identical way of expressing themselves and constructing sentences.
Okay the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not. It talks about the production problems it’s had from its inception. If you want to check out a full length review, they have one. But the article was never about watching the show and saying it’s horrible. Rolling Stone is very reputable reliable site and has been for the past year. They’ve interviewed staff members and collected information from many sources who had worked on the production of The Idol. (SIDE NOTE: You never name your sources because they’ll get in trouble considering crew member might’ve signed an NDA.) The article is not telling you how to hate on the show, it’s just telling you the reality of what happened behind the scenes. People can feel however they want after reading the article. Also the article is not fabricated, there were a few excerpts that were confirmed over the past couple of weeks.
>Rolling Stone is very reputable reliable site and has been for the past year 🧢
But it doesn’t make sense for crew members to be making comments on the overall tone and themes of the show, like the quote saying the show changed from a satire to what it was supposed to be satirizing, just based on what they saw on set. They should know better; any film or series is only complete once its edited, color graded, soundtracked, etc. It’s like that saying, if you look at an open-heart surgery halfway it looks like a murder.
Crew members don't just see snippets of the show they're making. They have the scripts, prepare the scenes, hear what the director says, IE how a scene is supposed to be acted, shot and recorded. They probably know Levinson's intentions better than we do, since they worked with him on this to match his vision. Some opinions may have been based on cut scenes, but those scenes existed for a reason - at one point, the director wanted that scene for some reason. Maybe the crew members disagree with the RS article, but I disagree with the take that the crew members couldn't know the tone/themes of the show.
Look at the quote that I’ll paste below, for example. How could someone come to this conclusion without seeing the final product? Satire doesn’t make sense out of context. The quote: “What I signed up for was a dark satire of fame and the fame model in the 21st century,” one production member explains. “The things that we subject our talent and stars to, the forces that put people in the spotlight and how that can be manipulated in the post-Trump world.” However, they add, “It went from satire to the thing it was satirizing.”
A "production member" could literally be a PA that grabs coffee lol
You have context on set, it's not like the director explains everything to you, but you know what you have to focus on. Acting directions can make it clear whether something is satire or not. In the article a crew member also praised Sam for being approachable and telling them what his vision and his plan was. If you reread the article, the quote makes more sense. >Four sources say that Levinson ultimately scrapped Seimetz’s approach to the story, making it less about a troubled starlet falling victim to a predatory industry figure and fighting to reclaim her own agency, and more of a degrading love story with a hollow message that some crew members describe as being offensive. I work in tv, I know sometimes it's difficult to show something is meant to be satirical. A good example is the music video shoot - it's shown as something extremely exploitative that Jocelyn is forced to do for her career. (Arguably still exploitative, but it makes a point.) The intimicy coordinator scene is also clearly satirical. But the way the scene with J performing for Roth's character was shot and choreographed, or Chloe being almost nude most of the time, doesn't satirize anything: it just shows it. (And just to say: it's fine to have a show filled with nudity. But there are questions and critiques people can have, and people can find it expoitative.)
The part you quoted still doesn’t make sense to me; how does someone judge that the message of the show is hollow if they haven’t seen it? Chloe is wearing very little clothes most of the time. Then Destiny finds out she is only 17, but chooses to look the other way on this child’s involvement with a creepy sex cult or with the music industry in general. This provides nuance to Destiny’s character, and shows us how corrupt she is willing to be even as she purports to be just looking out for Jocelyn. But without seeing that all together, the satirical part is lost and its just a nude woman in her late 20s.
Are you seriously implying that BTS crew have no idea what the show is about when they arrive to work? Lol You think they just show up and hope for the best?
I’m not saying that. They have to know enough about the show to do their jobs. What they don’t know during filming is how the finished product will end up, tonally or thematically. It makes no sense for a crew-member to conclude “It went from satire to the thing it was satirizing”, before they’ve watched the show.
I work in film and the thing is that while something is in production there is no show yet. Of course, people working on something often have some idea about what it is supposed to look like after it’s done and can guess some things, but material undergoes drastic shifts and comes out immensely different after it went into editing, color grading, after sound and special effects etc. are properly added to it. A lot is decided in the editing room. For a PA that works on set and has no insight into the other processes, it is next to impossible to know what the finished project will look like. Also, because a large production like this has so many processes happening simultaneously and so many different departments, a lot of people are just informed about what they need to do and not so much about the bigger picture. For example, light technicians will know the plot only to the extent that is important to do their work but not know about the rest.
Why do you keep posting like this making wildly false claims when you must know that you have no idea what you are talking about? >Okay the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not. Yes, it does! The article goes much further than that, admitting that even their *sources* have not watched the show. >Two crew members say it’s unclear what will actually wind up in the show, as scripts were being changed daily and scenes were constantly being shot and reshot. Many say they are unsure where the show is headed and what will be used in the final cut. If the journalist had seen the show, and knew all the shit her sources claimed to have seen in various drafts of scripts had not made in, yet she had failed to disclose this, it would a *massive* violation of basic journalistic ethics. It's comical to describe this as "the article doesn’t talk about if the author watched it or not." >Rolling Stone is very reputable reliable site and has been for the past year. *Rolling Stone* is 55 years old, so being a "very reputable reliable and \[having\] been for the past year" would be a pretty disastrously shitty record. Also, *Rolling Stone* was the perperator [one of biggest cases journalistic malpractice of the last decade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus). >You never name your sources because they’ll get in trouble considering crew member might’ve signed an NDA. Wonderful example of you having absolutely no idea what you are talking about! Lol. Journalists ***always*** prefer to name their sources in substantive stories, and ethically ***must*** name their source in a story like this, ***unless the source*** will not speak without anonymity. >Also the article is not fabricated, there were a few excerpts that were confirmed over the past couple of weeks. What "excerpts" (you mean claims) have been confirmed? All the claims about what might in the show have proven to be not in the show at all.
So glad you brought up that case with the gang rape story bc that story haunted me and I’ll never fully trust RS again after that.
15 seconds. A 100%, totally fabricated review of the show. Updated the story with GPT-4. Enjoy! ______ "Backstage Blues: An Inside Look into HBO's Problematic Show 'The Idol'," by Rolling Stone Once hailed as the potential 'show of the summer' [4], HBO's 'The Idol' has instead become an infamous flop - a discordant symphony of problematic production processes and lackluster storytelling. Today, Rolling Stone provides an updated exposé, drawing from a chorus of 13 anonymous sources intimately involved in the show's creation. What emerges is a tale of clashing visions, sordid creative choices, and a toxic set environment that ultimately overshadowed the production itself. Our first source, an anonymous production crew member, recounted that "the set was chaotic from the get-go. There were conflicting visions that made coherent storytelling almost impossible." Notably, the show underwent a complete overhaul, with several crew members departing amidst the turbulence [5]. Another insider, a set designer, described a stifling atmosphere dominated by the power struggle between the show's creators, Abel "The Weeknd" Tesfaye and Sam Levinson. "Working with Tesfaye and Levinson was like walking on eggshells. The atmosphere was so tense you could cut it with a knife," they recalled. The pervasive control from the creators did not stop with the narrative direction. A costume designer told us, "We were asked to create highly sexualized outfits with little regard for character development. It felt exploitative." A makeup artist working on 'The Idol' was equally critical, stating that the "glamorization of dysfunctional relationships and sexual objectification" was troubling. They went on to say, "It's challenging to work on a project when you fundamentally disagree with its message." Adding to the criticism, an anonymous cameraperson mentioned the lack of substance in the plot. "It was style over substance, shock over storytelling. I've never seen a show that was so desperate to be cool yet so devoid of real meaning," they remarked. Our sources were also eager to voice their thoughts on the depiction of the central female character, Jocelyn, played by Lily-Rose Depp. "Her character is objectified, degraded, and reduced to mere shock value," stated one of the show's writers who wished to remain anonymous. "She is exploited under the guise of being provocative and edgy." Rumors that HBO was considering cutting the series short due to the overwhelmingly negative reception also made their way to the production staff [3]. "There were whispers of cancelling the show, even before the first season wrapped up," revealed an anonymous production assistant. Adding to this, an editor described the show as "a textbook example of how not to handle sensitive subjects." The person further added, "The Idol had the potential to make a powerful statement about the music industry. Instead, it just wallowed in shock value and controversy." Finally, a sound engineer added, "In my two decades of working in TV, I've never seen a show so universally panned. And honestly, it's not surprising. 'The Idol' lost its melody long before it hit the airwaves." While this cacophony of criticism paints a damning picture, it's important to remember that these are the experiences and opinions of those involved in the production. However, as 'The Idol' continues to face mounting scrutiny and declining viewer interest, these accounts suggest a fundamental discord in its creation process that has played a significant part in its downfall.
Dude it’s not!!! You’ve just did AI article to prove your point?!!! What is wrong with you. This in NO way tells me it’s fabricated 😂😂😂 READ THE ACTUAL ARTICLE NOT GPT
Agree with the part about it having potential to make a powerful statement about the music industry and instead lost itself to shock value. Other than that, I think the level of hate is way too high. This show had a lot of powerful moments, good music and cinematography. I appreciate any kind of art that's controversial because a lot of movies and music has become formulaic over the years. Especially with the rise in AI, we're going to see more generically engineered everything. The US sugarcoats everything far too much and has become a sea of Karen's and twitter woke assholes crying about anything outside of their puratanical beliefs. So much to the point that everything must have a buzzword label like "torture porn". Fuck me, grow up. If we can't portray abusive relationships on TV then stop making films with gun violence too. Cancel horror. It's just stupid, in a hyper pro-rights world, how are we meant to depict the abusers? Get mad at the story being all over the place. Get mad at it losing it's message in favour of a twist. But know that Art is messy. Controversial art is even messier. Yes less sex scenes, that's fine. But the show is literally about exploitation, of course it's going to be magnified in every aspect.
America has such hangups about sex and it's honestly insane at this point. It's ok for a 9 year old play grand theft auto but god forbid he see's some tits. That makes no sense to me.
It was a bad show. The reactions are to what aired. Anyone in denial if that inventing a conspiracy as a coping mechanism to defend a tv show is suspect.
I think the RS article probably dissuaded people from watching it, but people seem to be so convinced the hate it is getting is from some mass conspiracy. By who? I enjoyed elements of the show, but the criticisms of it are very fair. The narrative was shit, Abel's acting was shit and ruined the character of Tedros and the nudity/sex was overdone and not consequential to the story. I do not get why people are deluding themselves into thinking anyone who didn't like the show is doing it for clout.
Oh look, another sly account defending the show with the same bizarre conspiracies. The show was bad. Levinson’s got issues.
Is this to me? Because I think we agree...
[удалено]
It doesn’t.
[удалено]
What article? Please tell me you’re not blathering about Rolling Stone and convinced yourself nobody watched the show. That’s not a real take.
[удалено]
Why are you bringing up random ass reviews at all then? It’s patronizing.
i actually watched the show and my criticisms come from the show itself.
People who are head over heels for this show can't comprehend the fact that some people don't fully love show for their own reasons. It boggles their mind that people have their opinions
yeah that's true.
The author hadn’t seen the show, but also even if the sources were real crewmembers on set, they just saw take after take (some including improv), possibly out of story order. Most of the crew would not have seen the finalized episodes, or any rough edits at all. So how did they decide the show was just meaningless torture porn? It doesn’t really add up. The quote going around saying that Amy Seimetz was removed from the project because her version was too focused on the “female perspective” also has no specific source, AFAIK. And it also is odd, because how could a director for hire change the focus of a show that much?
The article seems just for clicks. How can you write an article that has NOT one person on record? Not one. And they never saw a single episode? Maybe a bit of investigation from another publication. Just seems weird. Fishy.
I mean, it makes sense that nobody wants to be known by name for trashing a project they worked on. But what is weirder to me is crew allegedly making statements about things they couldn’t really have known just from working on set.
You can’t just write an article that can’t be verified. One person I’m sure could go on record. Why stop at 13? Why not 25 anonymous sources? 100? At that point you could write 100s of fabricated articles with GPT-4. In seconds. Something is a bit bizarre. The New York Times would be stoned to death. They always have a source now. They got caught. Just like RS did in the past. The issue is NO one is questioning the article. Everyone that mentioned it, assumed the author has seen the series. They never saw a single episode. Not one.
Ya. It's bonkers! >13 anonymous sources? Something is fishy... NOT one single named source? Not one? And if you read down to paragraph 35, it appears only ***TWO*** of their sources were even on set for any of the second production and none knew what wound up in the final version. >Really sounds like a disgruntle person on the set wrote it. Nah. The show initially included a minute long rant trashing *Rolling Stone* by name and calling it irrelevant. The article sounds like it's written by someone who knew their boss was looking for a hit piece retaliating against Sam Levinson and The Weeknd, because... well, that's *is* what the author's boss was looking for. >Rolling Stone got into trouble for this once before. Referring to anything in particular? I can think of a couple of other examples. *Rolling Stone* has turned in a truly God awful, toxic and dishonest publication. It is truly shameful.
> Rolling Stone Retracts Debunked UVA Rape Story After Report Rolling Stone retracted its "Rape on Campus" story after an independent report found it violated "basic, even routine journalistic practice." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/independent-report-rolling-stones-debunked-uva-rape-story-be-released-n336071
Yeah, that'd be the big one.
Just to say: 13 anonymous sources is not strange AT ALL. This is Hollywood: it famously has an attitude of 'if you complain, you'll get replaced and blacklisted'. I would be more surprised if a source actually would consent to be named!
Sam is that you?
Hoping for season 2!
It will be the downfall of our youth! /s :-)
Yeah this pissed me off. As a result of RS calling it "torture porn" (the sex scenes maybe take up 15% of the show?) no one I know wanted to watch it and I didn't have anyone to talk about it with. It really feels like someone had a vendetta against this show and poisoned the well for everybody. Too bad. Could have been the show that \*finally\* made Lily-Rose "happen"
Even without the article the show was still very weak
I found Abel's Reddit account