Audio Edition – September 18th 2006

Like old times, it’s just John and Doug today, and on today’s installment of The Audio Edition, we discuss:

1) Papal infalability theology

2) Guba 1000% increase in internet movie sales

3) Heath Ledger Hatres Comic Book movies

4) Hating movies people love

5) Roman Polanski – child rapist living large

6) Jim Carrey’s future

7) Motley Crue movie

8) Earagon Trailer

9) Amazon Unboxed – Run away from it

10) Tom Cruise Goon Squad

11) Jet Li and Jackie Chan doing a film together

12) Matt Damon isn’t Captain Kirk

13) Freddy vs. Jason vs. Ash is still alive?

14) Guy Pearce as Harvy Dent?

All this and a few things more.

Subscribe to The Audio Edition on iTunes! iTunes will automatically download each new episode for you as soon as they go online! Just click this button. iTunes will open to the Audio Edition page. When it does, just click “subscribe”. It’s that easy!

Or you can manually download this installment of The Audio Edition here.

Comment with Facebook

70 thoughts on “Audio Edition – September 18th 2006

  1. Mr Roman Polanski, Director, producer and writer is guilty of Raping a minor of 13 years old. He was dulely convicted and later bailed. He then escaped to France to avoid serving his sentance.

    I am a lawyer and know that the facts are often hidden or are agreed to a specified story of lesser effect to avoid the cost of cases for lesser charges and to resolve in the interest of both parties.

    It is known that she was raped and he also had oral and anal sex with her.

    What is the misconception is that because she was 13 it meant it can also mean a automatic statutory rape case which may mask a full blown peodophile rape case as it were since it maybe percived as a title to a lesser crime of underage consensual sex.

    BUT………roman polanski did agree she was telling the truth and did not disagree with the rape victim even after he ran away. She DID resist and he DID force herself on a 13 year old girl commiting rape and unspeakable acts of sodomy. Roman polanski is a famous man and a rich man who has seemed to evade justice in his most artistic of manners. In many countries in the wetern world we would class his acts as those we would read in the front pages of our national news papers. How is it this man is deserving of any of my respect or anyone elses I don’t know!

    Second I cannot evaluate any work he has done since the time of 1977 when he should have been in constodial custody. Rape of a 13 year old girl is not something any memeber of the Public would tolerate and why have some? aleit a large majority of peoples? especially the so called learned of the actors world!!!!!!!! I am asahmed anyone should think of supporting someones work during a time he should be in prison and especially a fugutive on the run (who has intelligently coordinated efforts to avoid certain countries due to extraditions to this day and even in the filimng of his movies!!!).

    Don’t mistake your misplaced loyalty. I know what I am talking about, I am a serving lawyer of 19 years and a part time federal judge and sits on the board of americas lawyers guild. I am certain the man is a paedophile rapist on fact and on experiance i know who the man really is.

  2. Anybody else having problems d/l’ing the Audio Edition? I used the link provided for the iTunes entry, and I get a page with the pic of Campea and Nagy, and a description, but it says “0 Episodes” and the latest one it shows is May 24th of this year…

    Any ideas?

  3. Wow! John and Doug together again. I like Darren and Bruxy and all, but listening to you two guys do the Audio Edition reminded me of why this became my favorite podcast. No offense to the other guys, but maybe they should be special guests every now and then. It’s chemistry, plain and simple.

  4. A little lesson in papal infallibility….

    In Roman Catholic theology, Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals. And no, it hasn’t been changed yet.

    Doesn’t mean the Pope can’t still say stupid shit now and then.

  5. Henrik: “He’s never been convicted” does not apply to Roman Polanski. “Innocent until proven guilty” does not apply to him. WHY? He was, in fact, CONVICTED on stat rape [1977], He spent only 40 days in jail under a plea agreement- but the Superior court judge overruled the agreement, and would have sentenced Polanski under the maximum penalty.
    It was done- but before Polanski could be brought in after the 40…he had enough time to hop on a plane…he FLED.

    Up until this new incident, he kept his nose clean [at least publicly], and in time, there was some sympathy for him. When “Piano” came out it was his best film in YEARS. Nobody disputes his talents as a director, but perhaps Emmanuelle Seigner was not enough for him…

  6. Nice to have the two of you together again on a regular basis. You guys are just better together.

    Begtodiffer needs a swift kick in the ass.

    John, why all the hate for Star Trek man? Why wouldn’t Damon want to do a new movie?

    Anyway great show again guys. Will Darren and that preacher dude be back on next week?

  7. Mr. Henrik

    Sorry for the SP of your name. See what happens when you don’t pay enough attention?

    I agree with you when you say “There are plenty of coincidences of people confessing crimes they did not commit.” However, when you flee the country and refuse to face the charges being brought against you, that assumption is forfeit in most people’s eyes if not in law. You have to at least concede that point.

    He was charged with rape by law, refused to respond to the charge, nor has he refuted it, fled the country and refuses to face the charges, thereby violating even more law. He did indeed have sex with a child, by law, that is rape. Therefore, he is a rapist.

    But now you and I are just arguing over semantics. I understand where you are coming from. I’m not atempting to change your mind.

    And again, sorry about the SP of your name.

  8. Spell my name right.

    He’s innocent as long as he has not been convicted. There are plenty of coincidences of people confessing crimes they did not commit.

    So don’t call him a rapist.

  9. Just thought I’d chime in here –

    #1 – To “PB”. Did you see how “BegsToDiffer” started out this whole conversation? His quote was – “John – this is unbelievably disrespectful, ignorant, and naive”. How would you respond to someone who starts a conversation like that? I’d swing for the fences. BegsToDiffer set the tone and was asking for a confrontation. Then, when John soundly beat him, he scurried away. Nice.

    #2 – Rape is Rape. A rape is non-consentual sex. The only difference with statutory rape is that it is “stronger” than normal rape law, because it gives no way out. Lack of consent does not have to be “proved”. Lack of consent is assumed because a child is unable according to law to grant sexual consent. Rape is therfore still rape. non-consentual sex. Therefore, Polanski is a rapist. I realize that sounds harsh, but John is quite correct in saying so by definition

    #3 – To Mr. Henrick – Mr. Polanski has admitted to the charge. The constitution of the United States does not give you the right to flee from the law when you are charged with a crime.

    #4 – To John – Great show, but it did feel rushed. When you rush it sometimes feels like you’re just repeating what you said on the site already without adding much more. Grant yourself more time, or limit the number of topics. Just a suggestion.

    #5 – Like anyone cares what I have to say.

  10. About the Polanski thing:

    He was never convicted, right? Doesn’t the constitution in America state that you’re innocent untill proven guilty?

    Polanski is innocent. Nobody has any right to state anything else. That is a right which is one of the foundations of democracy.

  11. Just so you guys know. David Goyer wrote what the sequels would be about quite some time ago. Before BB came out no less. TDK would be about Batman, Gordon, And Dent forming the “holy trinity” ala The Long Halloween, to try to take down The Joker. The third film would begin with Joker on trial and scarring Dent, turning him into Two-Face.

    The role Penguin will play is still unknown. Albiet small, the arms dealer thing came out of an old insider report to BOF that involved Black Mask also and Salvatore Maroni. It was later reported by the same source I believe that Black Mask may have been removed and most it was 50/50. Penguin being in TDK seems to be a given. If he’ll be an arms dealer, a mob boss, or runs The Iceberg Lounge is left up. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s a mob boss as a link to the mob of old and the new “freaks” in Gotham. Even though Penguin is one of the few Bat villians who is not insane. But you get the point.

  12. I love the movie blog and love the audio stuff.
    But hey we have some double standards going on in my thick mind.
    1: We hate Polanski who is supposed to have screwed an under age girl.
    2: We are suppose to find it funny and broadcast that Motley crew shove phones where the sun don’t shine in some girl?

    I don’t give a shit what you say John, but at least respond to BegToDiffer in a less aggressive mode, your habit of reply is becoming very annoying.

  13. Though I feel as though BEGTODIFFER is kinda being an ass, he has one point which I feel like you are choosing not to accept or maybe I just don’t know the facts. There is in fact a difference between a statutory rapist and a child rapist. The former, which I was under the impression is what Polanski is, is somebody who has sex with a minor with their consent (the rape part of the term coming from the fact that the state does not believe the person under whatever age the state chooses – differs from state to state, though 13 is probably too young in any state – is too young to determine whether they actually want to have sex). The latter is somebody who forces themself on a minor, which I don’t believe he did, but again I don’t know the facts. He gave her drugs, but did that happen during or after the sex or before? I don’t know. You’re right not to respect him as a person and no matter the verdict feel that he was a coward and a gross human being, but you are repeatedly calling him a child rapist which I don’t believe is what he was charged with.

  14. Instead of responding with any convincing arguement (like there is any), like the coward that is Polanski, you pussy out. No one is buying into your bullshit, Begtodiffer.

    The man commited a crime and fled. He should face justice. End of story.

  15. You’re right, nothing is incorrect.

    But maybe John, just maybe, you should keep the focus of this blog on what you do best – getting excited about robot and long underwear movies. Leave Polanski to be discussed by those worthy to.

    Peace, brother.

  16. Apparently BegToDiffer doesn’t bother himself with pesky thinkg like “facts”

    You’re right, we should accuse people of things they’ve never been proven to do. ALL ROCK STARS ARE CHILD RAPISTS!!!

    Facts are facts. Period. And dude… a guy yells a slur while drunk… and that’s WORSE than fucking a 13 year old child in the ass and giving her drugs. I wonder if you’ll think the same thing if it was your daughter.

    Yeah…the mom should never have let her in that situation… but WHAT THE HELL does that have to do with HIM? Are you being silly enough to suggest that mitigates ANY of HIS fault in this?

    Oh gosh… and I’m so sorry I “parrot the law”. how dumb of me to refer to the governing rules of our countries. My bad dude… totally my bad.


    He broke the law, and instead of facing up to it, the guy ran and has never faced justice for it. I don’t think the dude should have been executed for it… or even got 25 years or anything like that… but he broke the law, fucked a child in the ass, and then ran away.

    Which part of that is incorrect exactly?

  17. Do you even know the difference between rape and statutory rape? Legally, what Polanski did was the latter. The fact that California courts consider statutory rape as rape doesn’t change definitions. If Polanski had sex with the girl in another country (with a lower AOC) would you still be decrying “child rapist”, or are you merely a parrot of the law?

    I never said “she had it coming” or that it was “her fault.” But let’s be honest, what mother leaves their 13 year-old daughter with a womanizing director?

    I do believe that there are MANY who would dispute your “child rapist” tag.

    And to be honest, I do believe Gibson’s anti-Semitism (as evinced in his Jesus-snuff-porno film) is a far more horrific crime than a teenager having sex with a celebrity.

    What about rockstars that fuck underage fans? Why aren’t you here calling them “child rapists”? Oh yes…they weren’t caught, therefore it doesn’t count.

  18. HAHAHA!!!! Oh BegsToDiffer, You kill me!

    Are you REALLY comparing a guy who SAID something while drink, to a guy who (BY LEGAL DEFINITION, not by my opinion) is a child rapist? And are you REALLY placing blame on the victim????? A 13 year old child!?!?! Wow dude… that’s all I can say… WOW.

    And, as I said REPEATEDLY in the cast, I’m not passiing judgment on the dude… I ony used the factual LEGAL DEFINITION and terminology. I said NOTHING that wasn’t factual.

    Stating public record facts are not defamation. Do you even know what the term means?

    So let me make sure I have you right:

    1) If you’re a good director, the law doesn’t apply to you

    2) Saying a stupid ass thing while drunk, is the same as sodomizing and doing drugs with a 13 year old child

    3) If the child wasn’t a virgin, then it’s her own fault and she had it coming. 13 shoud be old enough for legal consent if she’s already a slut.

    4) Stating public record fact THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE BY ANYONE is Defamation

    5) If you point out a fact that is public record and no one is disputing… then that’s “passing judgment”

    Dude… are you reading your own words before typing them?

  19. John, you’re acting like a sanctimonious prick and you know it. To “define” Polanski as you have is nothing but defamation. Polanski did have sex with an underage girl, but to label him “child rapist” — thereby grouping him with sickos who force themselves on children — even someone such as yourself is smart enough to know the difference.

    Geimer was not a virgin when she had sex with Polanski, nor can her mother be considered blameless in all this. People like you who pass simple black and white judgments for the sake of god-knows-what are the lowest of the low.

    Let me give you another example. Literary critics have often struggled with their reaction/thoughts to Celine, who was an admitted fascist. Does that fact taint his literature and our reaction to it? Not an easy question to answer.

    It’s funny, because you were so quick to forgive Jew-Hater Gibson simply because he said “sorry”. Yet in this case, you have the audacity to pass judgment? Once again, who the F are you John?

  20. Excellent show guys. But I sorta agree with Darren above. I think i’d rather hear a couple of fewer topics but hear you guys spend more time on each. This one just felt a little rushed. Either that or guve us the 2 hour Audio Edition we’ve all been asking for!

  21. Ummm… BegToDiffer,

    Perhaps… instead of just ranting… you actually… you know… pointed out what part of my statement isn’t factually correct, Imight be able to take your attack seriously.

    Did he not have sex with a 13 year old?
    Did he not break bond and flee to Europte to elude justice?
    Did I once attack his filmmaking ability?
    Was there 1 single factual mistake i made? If so, please point it out.

    Oh.. I’m sorry… he’s a great director. So he should be given a free pass as far as the law is concerned? HAHAHA!!! You’re hilarious.

  22. Roman Polanski – child rapist living large

    John – this is unbelievably disrespectful, ignorant, and naive. Who the hell are you to pass judgement on one of the world’s finest directors? Do you even know the actual story behind the incident? What do you even know about Polanski anyway? How many of his films have you seen, outside of The Piano?

    It’s a sad day indeed when a fanboy with a bloated ego begins pontificating about serious filmmakers. You should be ashamed.

  23. Ben Stiller totally has a schtick!! in fact he has the biggest one in Hollywood, over half his roles are the same character, Zoolander, Dodgeball, Anchorman, the wide eyed, too stupid to realize he’s stupid character, I just saw the trailer for the School for Scoundrels and low and behold, its that same character again.

    Mind you, I find that character completely hilarious, so Im not complaining….yet.


  24. The two movies that come to mind when it comes to HATING them and yet everyone else loves them are:

    Apocalypse Now and Chicago

    I just couldn’t sit through them, and I really wanted to!


  25. good audio edititon if freed vs jason vs ash i rember hearing this about the time when freedy vs jason come out if they do make this i wikll be there and this will be one of no.1 films i will be looking forward to. and tom crusie is a dick

  26. Hey John and Doug,

    Good audio edition. John, in defense of all those people who disagree with your movie hate list, I’d say that you SHOULD NOT be so surprised by the reaction you got.

    People LOVE these films and are willing to defend them when others say something negative about them.

    Keep up the good work.

  27. P.S. People worry about the number of villains in the next Batman film too much. Remember, they crammed Ra’s Al Ghul, fake Ra’s Al Ghul, Scarecrow, Joe Chill, Mr Zsaz AND Carmine Falcone into Batman Begins. Have some faith in Christopher Nolan.

    P.P.S. Shame on you, Doug. Pay It Forward is sentimental dreck.

  28. Thanks for another great AE.

    – Seriously, who cares that Heath Ledger hates comic book films? Does it really matter? All that’ll happen is when the film is released he’ll sit in front of a poster and tell everyone, ‘I normally hate comic book films, but THIS one is great!’ No one here needs the approbation of an actor, for chrissakes, especially not one who was in 10 Things I Hate About You.

    – NO, NO, NO! Don’t encourage new Motley Crue fans! You know every time something bad happened to the band in that book? That was God TRYING TO KILL THEM! God understood the true horror of poodle rock, and in His wisdom he tried to smite them down. It’s bad enough we have to put up with Catherine Zeta Jones, Ashton Kutcher and 50 Cent. If you bring back Motley Crue, you may tip the human race into an abyss of banality from which we may never emerge!

    – Jesus, that Amazon thing sounds fucking awful.

    – You’d think Scientologists were the new Mafia from the stories you hear, all of which I’m sure are true. I mean, when you’re a rich, powerful, highly visible guy with an army of lawyers at your disposal (like Tom Cruise), why not use your religion’s goon squad for a bit of good old-fashioned strong-arming? Makes perfect sense. In fact, I heard Mel Gibson put together a crew of club-wielding Catholic priests when he was in talks to do Leathal Weapon 4.

  29. I don’t get why Jim Carreys career is considered to be in a slump…

    bruce almighty (which was a piece of shit)took in over 200 million domestic…eternal sunshine wasn’t a huge box office hit but it was critically acclaimed and it was a small indie…he didn;t get paid 20 mill for that thats for sure…I don’t think it was made with 100 million in mind….then that piece of shit fun with dick and jane managed to take in over a hundred mill and it came out against narnia and king kong..

    so why exactly are studios scared to make his films??

    his last two films that played to his “strengths” were money makers so why are they so scared of funding his comedies films?
    i can see why they might be wary of “majestic” type i-wanna-be-jimmy-stewart films (having said that I thought it was great but then again darabont is probably the most underrated film maker in the world) but when it comes to comedies he hasn’t had one tank since cable guy which funnily enough I think is his best film….

    anyway….when 2 films ago he makes 200 mill it seems weird that he is considered to be in a “slump”….

  30. Hi John

    It’s interesting that two Aussie actors, Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce, gave star-making performances in L.A. Confidential, but only Russell has gone on to bigger and better things: box-office hits, winning an Oscar, throwing a phone, etc. Guy Pearce had his chance after Memento, when The Count Of Monte Cristo and The Time Machine were released in the same year. This should have been the one-two punch that really blew his career wide open. But neither movie was a hit.

    In the Australian press Guy Pearce has said he is not particularly worried about having a big Hollywood career, and judging by his role choices since 2002, I can only agree. A pity, because he is an excellent actor and an interesting guy who deserves a larger audience.

    Is that really what happens at the end of Pay It Forward! If so, thanks for the spoiler warning. NOT.


  31. Good call on making the audio files 64kbps. 128 and 96 was way too high for voice, you wasted a lot of bandwidth with those files. Cant tell the difference in quality.

  32. Hey John,

    Thanks for the excellent Movie Blog! I was stoked to read your favorite and hate lists and find that my lists almost completely mirror yours. And I am happy to also find that my views don’t completely match yours… that would have been frightening.

    I’m with you: Transformers to take all in 2007!

    Also, the Pope did apologize. That was my main reason for posting before, but I forgot, as I found the infallibility information for you.

  33. Hey Darren,

    You’re right, I forgot to explain why Darren and Bruxy weren’t on the show:

    1) Bruxy had to fly out west to speak at a conference. He WILL be here next week.

    2) Darren had a death in the family on the weekend. Obviously familly stuff takes priority… but he should be back next week too.

    Hope that answers that.



  34. Papal [Infallibility] doesn’t mean what you think it means, John. This isn’t meant to start a “Catholic/Protestant” debate, and I will not take part in such. Just to clarify the actual teaching to those that may not know what it actually means. Papal [Infallibility] doesn’t mean what you think it means, John. This isn’t meant to start a “Catholic/Protestant” debate, and I will not take part in such. Just to clarify the actual teaching to those that may not know what it actually means. <- Read up. The Pope, in 2000 years, has only made 2 infallible statements. No more, no less. In the Vatican definition infallibility (whether of fhe Church at large or of the pope) is affirmed only in regard to doctrines of faith or morals; but within the province of faith and morals its scope is not limited to doctrines that have been formally revealed. This, however, is clearly understood to be what theologians call the direct and primary object of infallible authority: it was for the maintenance and interpretation and legitimate development of Christ's teaching that the Church was endowed with this charisma. But if this primary function is to be adequately and effectively discharged, it is clear that there must also be indirect and secondary objects to which infallibility extends, namely, doctrines and facts which, although they cannot strictly speaking be said to be revealed, are nevertheless so intimately connected with revealed truths that, were one free to deny the former, he would logically deny the latter and thus defeat the primary purpose for which infallibility was promised by Christ to His Church. This principle is expressly affrmed by the Vatican Council when it says that "the Church, which, together with the Apostolic office of teaching received the command to guard the deposit of faith, possesses also by Divine authority (divinitus) the right to condemn science falsely so called, lest anyone should be cheated by philosophy and vain conceit (cf. Colossians 2:8)" (Denz., 1798, old no. 1845).

  35. What? I thought Darren Connelly and Bruxy would join you- and no explanation of the AWOL. Still- I..whoa-!

    I can’t believe it–!
    John and Doug breezed by all those topics like someone giving ranson demands. I can’t even break all of them down you two flew through them so fast..!

    So…well…you got me thinking.

    What if Ryan Phillippe and Guy Pearce turn down the role of Harvey Dent either due to not interested/schedule conflict? GET THE CHIN. Then one day, John Campea, you may get your wish…Bruce vs. Batman.

Leave a Reply