Woody Allen: Amazon Screwed Me Over Molestation Allegation ... I'm Suing for $68 Million!!!

This is actually interesting. If people and companies break contracts due to accusations that have not been tested the courts, I would assume that Allen is in his rights to sue for remedies.

Apparently Woody and his investors financed A Rainy Day in New York and then Amazon stiffed him on paying him back:

Allen says that pursuant to the agreement, he and investors have put $20 million into financing the production of A Rainy Day in New York, starring Jude Law and Selena Gomez, but that Amazon is refusing to make guaranteed payments. He alleges being owed $9 million in such guarantees plus additional amounts based on the success of the film. Allen also alleges that Amazon committed to a theatrical release for a period of at least 90 days.

I can't blame him. Breaking a contract over allegations from 25 years ago that were well known to both parties when the contract was signed is clearly wrong. Amazon will have to pay something.

LOL good luck getting out of this one Amazon... those allegations have been in the public eye for 25 years when they signed his deal, and no new evidence was provided by Dylan.

Take em to the cleaners Woody!

It seems as if Amazon threw all sorts of cash at Woody back when they were developing original content. I have a feeling that they will settle and move on. I was expecting the film to be quietly released at some point and the future projects would be cancelled and WA paid off. It's a difficult situation for fans to try and separate their love of the work and deal with the personal issues of the people behind it. In this case, WA did something that he knew was going to pay for ( the affair with Soon-Yi) I don't think that he expected everything that has happened since. If he did something inappropriate with Dylan then he has paid a certain price for it, if he didn't then he got punished for the Soon-Yi thing. I have followed the WA and Mia story since it began and there is a lot of dysfunction to go around for everyone concerned.

Anyone else think he should also sue Dylan?

My guess is that Amazon already tried to settle but Woody is feeling pissy again. There were rumors nearly a year ago that Amazon was just going to pay him off and let him go.

He's got a cause of action, and I suspect Amazon will settle--although it would be interesting, and maybe useful, to get a judicial opinion on matters like this.

He's got no real cause of action against Dylan--it's hard to prove slander against a public figure.

He would never sue Dylan. He feels she's the victim of Mia's brain-washing and doesn't want to make her situation worse. A few years ago, with the help of one of her siblings, he reached out to Dylan with the hopes of reconciling but it was no-go.

R10, we don’t know if he has a cause of action because we haven’t seen the contract. Studios may give themselves all kinds of ways to avoid releasing films they do not want to release.

I don't think he should sue Dylan, either. She's too fragile; it would be inhumane. Plus I think she honestly believes he did these things to her.

But the Amazon thing is strictly business. Why should he let them walk away from a contract? I hope he does sue.

Did Amazon low ball him? That must have pissed Allen off.

Woody has an established history of statutory rape so the "baseless allegations" bit is not exactly solid ground for a lawsuit.

The idea that Dylan was brainwashed by Mia into believing she was molested by her father overlooks the well-established fact that he diddled Dylan's sister (who may or may not have been underage when it all started between them) at the same time he was fucking her mother. I have no doubt he entertained fantasies of fucking every female in Mia's household and thought that playing with Dylan's little pussy was just harmless indulgence since he didn't actually shove his cock into it.

It sounds like Amazon just walked away and left Allen holding the bag. Of course, it's possible that TMZ doesn't have the facts.

He has no "established history of statuory rape," r15. Give it a rest.

It's on other sites too R16

Maybe the movie stunk as bad as Soon-Yi's pussy.

Thanks, r18.

My truth! My truth!

Good, I hope Allen wins.

He'll be dead by the time this gets settled. Hold out Amazon. Woody can't live forever.

Bezos at the trial: "All I can do is speak my truth and hope that someone will believe me that I never had a binding contract with Woody"

Both his parents lived to their late 90s or 100s I believe R23.

Fuck Amazon. They should have just released the movie and quietly paid Allen off, but they made a big stink and cow-towed to the SJWs. He’s probably pissed because the movie is decent and it’s awards season. Let’s not forget he won another Oscar just a few years ago for MIDNIGHT IN PARIS.

It’s not Dylan’s fault. Mia planted the accusation.

It's official--Woody Allen fans are as delusional as Michael Jackson fans. Stacey Nelkin and Christine Engelhardt both had affairs with Woody when they were under the age of consent.

finally he strikes back. Fuck them, Woody! Get everything!

Yo quiero ver Tim O’Tay.

Forget HIM. You should be talking about ME.

I support anything or anyone that fucks Amazon.

[quote]It's official--Woody Allen fans are as delusional as Michael Jackson fans. Stacey Nelkin and Christine Engelhardt both had affairs with Woody when they were under the age of consent.

OMG! Just like David Bowie!

I'm wondering if this will lead to lawsuits from those who were fired because of "moral" clauses in their contracts for allegations they haven't been convicted of in a court of law.

Get it Woody! It's not like Bezos is Pauline Pureheart. Sue the living fuck out of that greedy limp turtle!

that would be an interesting development, r35.

R1 has a good point. I don't think Amazon can get out of this one.

I don't think they can, either. Their best hope is to settle with undertakings on both sides, but I hope Allen resists that and hauls Bezos' ass into court.

Greedy, old perverted fuck who doesn't have the good sense to quietly disappear.

It seems Amazon tried to terminate the contract in June 2018, so my best guess is that Allen said no to their offer. Which may mean he doesn't have a lot of standing in this case. Depends on what the offer was.

I don't think that's necessarily true, r40. He's not obliged to accept an offer to terminate; he can, and possibly did, demand performance. Or he can do nothing in response to their offer, in which case there's no new contract created and the old one remains valid.

Allen won't sue Dylan because there is no motive for her to have lied. She's made no profit nor a career off of it.

The only motive ever given was Allen's insistence 25 years ago that Dylan, as a little girl, was brainwashed by his scorned ex girlfriend Mia. The problem is, once Dylan grew up, her story didn't change. Neither did Ronan's recollections of Woody's physical abuse. The "brainwashed little girl" motive was all he had so he stuck with it, but it very likely wouldn't fly in a court of law.

Imagine being Allen's lawyer and trying to convince a jury that a 30-something woman had been permanently brainwashed by Mia Farrow, a woman who can't even balance her own checkbook.

Amazon obviously didn’t offer an amount that seemed reasonable to Allen.

I am kind of shocked WA got people to invest in the film he made starring Jude Law. Guess he still has a few wealthy friends.

I don't think you understand the nature of brainwashing a child. If that story was constantly reinforced throughout her childhood by the parent who holds herself out as the "good parent," who in her life could, or did, tell her it's not true. If she were given hard, incontrovertible proof now that the abuse never happened, I think she could have a psychotic break. As she says, this is her truth. If that's taken from her, her whole life becomes a lie. Not a good scene.

I'm surprised Amazon didn't offer him the rights to the movie and let him distribute it himself. Just take their name off the credits and let him have it. Would have cleared this all up in a jiffy, because you know his real problem was that the movie wasn't released.

R46 Amazon may have offered him the rights. He might not be able to get another distributor in which case he needs to sue to get his money.

My guess is that the money he would be make from self releasing would be a lot less than if Amazon released it. According to the contract published in the article, the contract required Amazon to theatrically release the movie for " a period of at least 90 days, in 20 of the top 25 markets in the United States, and on a minimum of 500 screens."

What ever happened to the mini series he shot with Miley Cyrus?

It's on Amazon. It was horrible.

[quote]the contract required Amazon to theatrically release the movie for " a period of at least 90 days, in 20 of the top 25 markets in the United States, and on a minimum of 500 screens."

Holy cow, Amazon were idiots.

Whether or not he did it doesn't matter. The accusation was made 26 years ago and everybody knew about it. Amazon contracted him to make four films with him knowing about the allegations. Then suddenly they decided they wanted out because they perceived a change in public sentiment. Too bad. They're going to have to pay SOMEthing because unless they put a clause in there like "oh but also Amazon can do whatever they want and none of the aforementioned is binding," they don't have a leg to stand on. If Allen had been convicted and served time 26 years ago and Amazon tried this stunt, same result.

The only thing that Amazon and Netflix and Apple have going for them is massive amounts of $$$. Right now, they can "buy" any filmmaker they want (including Scorsese) by throwing $$$ at them. These companies are buying the talent, not because they have any respect for it, but because they can. No one knows where will this new industry lead to in ten, twenty years. We may simply end up with more corporate attitudes towards filmmakers (because that's what these companies are, more so than film studios).

r45 Agreed. If you haven't been around narcissists in your formative years you won't understand how brain-washing occurs. It is mandatory for your world to make sense.

The important thing to remember is that MIA IS BITCH.

What a shitshow. I hope Woody gets his $$$.

Everyone here is assuming it's Dylan's accusation that Amazon is referencing. It could be some of the revaluations from teenage girls. There was also a reference to Allen's controversial statements. Allen defended Harvey and he called himself the poster boy for the me too movement. It's common for contracts to have a clause that you don't say stuff in public that might affect sales.

[quote]It could be some of the revaluations from teenage girls.

Ummmmm... you realize he MADE A MOVIE ABOUT THAT RELATIONSHIP 40 YEARS AGO?

[quote]I don't think you understand the nature of brainwashing a child

There is no scientific evidence that brainwashing is possible. None. Literally none.

There are numerous psychological studies on various coercion and control techniques, but no study has yet shown that brainwashing, as you are describing it, is possible.

The fact that you think it is not only possible but a common sense, everyday thing that occurs that someone like me simply doesn't understand tells me that YOU are the one who is wholly and completely ignorant of what you are even saying.

That is a good point, R57. There was a woman who came forward to say she had an affair with Allen when she was underage. That didn't come out until December 2018 though, and Amazon supposedly wanted out by June 2018.

R58 that movie was supposed to be fiction. Revelations that he had a real life underage girlfriend is different than him playing a character in a movie with an under aged girlfriend.

r61 = IDIOT, not worth arguing with

R60 he made his I'm the poster boy for Me Too comment in June of 2018. He defended Harvey in 2017.

r59, I think you're being too literal. I can tell you that if you tell a young child something, and keep repeating it over and over again, the child will believe that it happened--particularly if you're the primary parent/caregiver, because the child trusts and believes you. The story you've told becomes a real part of the child's life, and it's reinforced by the way the mother and others behave toward the person being demonized.

Children believe what they're told. They believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, and when their faith is shaken they go to mummy to get the truth.

He didn't defend Harvey Weinstein

R63 = idiot

If it makes you better, everyone thinks Woody should be roasted on a spit in hell!!!?!! Does that make you feel better?

That aside, everyone knew he dated the high schooler he wrote Manhattan on including her name from the get go. It was public knowledge. And Amazon didn’t think it hurt their business then. But a second. Oh my God! Now that is beyond the pale.

The thing is, r1, Allen's accusations HAVE been tested in courts.

They found that Dylan Farrow was full of shit and dismissed the case.

It is an interesting thought experiment, wondering if Amazon would have forgone the deal if #MeToo had been a thing when the contract was signed, but I'm not sure they could make a compelling legal case by saying "we were okay with the accusations until he said he was the poster child for Me Too." Still, it'll be interesting to see if they try it.

R67 that isn't an accurate account of what happened.

[quote]They found that Dylan Farrow was full of shit and dismissed the case.

Absolutely untrue.

I've been on enough of the Mia Farrow threads to know how this goes with you or people like you: you make this claim, get called on it, then keep moving goalposts as you jabber on about Master Mind Control Manipulator Mia Farrow.

"Diddled," r15?

Soon-Yi's affair with Woody Allen has remained consensual for decades.

Quit slandering Allen, Mia.

R15 Bullshit. Even Mia and the judge who certainly didn’t favor Allen admitted that his affair with Soon-Yi did not start until she was 18.

Bullshit, r42.

Allen has a lot more than "his" "brainwashed little girl story."

It was originally the prosecutors' belief.

But in recent years, Soon-yi, Tam and Moses Farrow all corroborated Mia's child abuse and testified that they saw Mia coaching Dylan with a script.

Three of the adoptees are/were all estranged from Mia Farrow because she's a crazy bitch and you need to familiarize yourself with Mia's abusive and criminal behavior before you take her side. And Ronan isn't Allen's kid, you hype-swallowing hater.

Pretty soon, YOUR kids will start killing themselves because of your abuse just like Mia Farrow's do.

CEO of Amazon Jeff Bezos is gay and bearding. He's one of the most desperate closet cases in the show business.

Allen originally said that the Weinstein situation was sad for everybody, and then later had to go back and clarify because what he said sounded like a defense. If people think he defended Weinstein, it's because he wasn't careful with his words the first time.

Nobody knows what Soon-Yi's age is, not even her. No one could have possibly said that her affair started at 18, because she doesn't know her exact age.

No one has really pushed the idea that she was underage, of course, but you're implying that a judge ruled that she was 18 when she started sleeping with Allen, and nothing like that ever happened.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

sorry wrong thread

[quote] Allen's accusations HAVE been tested in courts. They found that Dylan Farrow was full of shit and dismissed the case.

There was no court case and no judge or jury or even DA determined Dylan was lying.

[quote]But in recent years, Soon-yi, Tam and Moses Farrow all corroborated Mia's child abuse and testified that they saw Mia coaching Dylan with a script.

They have not testified about anything because there has been no court case. And Tam hasn't done anything in recent years because she's dead

R27 true but what about her fake crying?

[quote][R58] that movie was supposed to be fiction.

Do you mean Manhattan? Well, partly fiction since the character played by Mariel Hemingway is possibly based on the teenage Stuy student Woody was dating or this woman:

[quote]Engelhardt doesn't suppose she's the sole inspiration for Tracy. She knows that actress Stacey Nelkin, who dated Allen while she was a 17-year-old student at Stuyvesant High School after meeting him during the making of Annie Hall, has stated she was his Manhattan muse. (Still: "When I heard her say that, I was like, 'Whatever.' ") For Engelhardt's part, she presumes Tracy is a composite and that any number of Allen's presumed other real-life young paramours, including the two she met during threesomes, may have collectively stirred the director's imagination. "I was a fragment," she explains. "Great artists cherry-pick."

Bully for Amazon! I hope they dig up the truth and the SOB rots in jail.

Did Mariel Hemingway really date Allen or just fake dated him? She doesn't look straight to me she looks like a masculine version of Cara Delevigne.

I was hoping this thread would be about Amazon's bully tactics, but it turned into another Woody vs Mia argument. Sigh.

People forget that there were a lot of articles in 2018 about Woody Allen. They included not only the stories about his actual relationships with underaged girls, but also a January 2018 Washington Post story by a writer who went through Allen’s unpublished writings and came away with the conclusion that Allen was,yes, “obsessed” with teenaged girls. Any of these might have persuaded Amazon that they did not want to release Allen’s movie.

R85 = Dylan "Choo-choo!" Farrow

I don't think Mariel Hemingway dated Woody Allen at all, r83--real, fake, or otherwise.

Good catch, r85. I'd forgotten about that article. Maybe Amazon really can come up with enough materially significant things to present in court as a reason for why they felt they were legally able to cancel the contract.

R83 Yeah she didn't look like she was "acting" in Personal Best

R87 Thanks.

Sure, Jan at r74. Why you'd want to claim Bezos as a closet gay of all unappealing men is beyond me, but you go right ahead--Jan.

Who knew the talentless, money-hoarding, child-raping old gnome had so many supporters on DL?

I wouldn't call Mia a "gnome", r92

He should sue Mia and her spawn.

No justice for Woody, NO PEACE !

If you have eyes, it's pretty easy to tell which one is the gnome, R93.

My tea!

r96 don't let us keep you from missing the point

Did Woody have signed contracts? If so then Amazon can not back out without financial compensatia. Sounds like it might have been more oral than written. But anyway, we hope Woody wins and makes Amazon pay a fortune!

"Three of the adoptees are/were all estranged from Mia Farrow because she's a crazy bitch and you need to familiarize yourself with Mia's abusive and criminal behavior before you take her side. And Ronan isn't Allen's kid, you hype-swallowing hater."

You are obviously a psycho. Go suck Woody's inchworm, you psycho cunt.

r100 didn't address any of the substance of what the poster said, just attacked him... Hmmmm.....

Woody is said to be horse-hung.

No factual rebuttal or links, just attacking the person again... Hmmm....

R34 No, as typically these clauses allow the company to hire an independent law firm/investigator (ie former federal prosecutor) to investigate potential cases of moral turpitude. There is no need for criminal charges to be made. All that is needed is an independent investigative body finding evidence of misbehavior. See the case of Les Moonves.

Hemingway didn't date Allen. He hit her and she turned him down. He invited her to travel with him, he expected her to share a room and bed with him. They hadn't been on a date or kissed offscreen. It was a little odd of him the expect her to commit to having sex with him on a trip.

Manhattan wasn't presented as an autobiography. People who went to the movie didn't know Allen's personal history with teenagers. In public he always had age appropriate girlfriends before Soon Yi. Manhattan is only evidence of his perv tendencies in hindsight. He was thought of as a nice neurotic intellectual before the scandal. He would not be as popular as he was and still is, if he'd been thought of as a creep.

With that face and body, it doesn't matter if Woody has a 10 inch dick.

I hope Amazon bankrupts his ass.

I think I read somewhere that this unreleased movie is about a middle-aged, balding man (Jude Law) who has the hots for a much much younger woman (Elle Fanning). Talk about putting out fire with gasoline.

I hope he wins so Mia has a breakdown.

A plague on both their houses.

Woody's probably glad that the focus shifted off him and onto Bezos dick pic

In our day sisters loved men and hated fish. Today it is the other way around. This is NOT progress!

He has a lot more private support than just Diane Keaton. His daughter and Martin Scorsese's daughter are all over each other's Instagram.

the fact that he is saying in the legal paperwork that the claims in the early 1990s were bogus makes me think he hopes to use this case as a platform to try to legally clear his name.

That's not a good idea, because Amazon, to salvage their reputation and save money, will hire the best investigators money can buy and he's not going to like what they find.

"she looks like a masculine version of Cara Delevigne"

Considering how masculine Ms Delevigne looks, that's a whole new world of butch...

No matter how poor this film may be, it can’t be worse than The Wife.

I dunno, R112, it all seems to be part of a larger GOP attack strategy. All this coming out on the same day, including Ronan saying he's being blackmailed too? Too coincidental.

Does the NE have "intimate photos of Bezos with a man? Or is this an engineered thing to make him look straight? My guess is the latter, because of how public he's making it.

I want to see Timmy's movie. Fuck Amazon.

The "exposé" on Woody archives was the most ridiculous and pathetic piece of journalism i've ever read. The author came across a retarded SJW. "Woody likes young women instead of older women: call the police!". it was such a shitty hit job.

I agree with you, r121. What I couldn't understand at the time was why The Post published this. The author wasn't on staff; he was just some officious meddler who wrote up his impressions, and I think the paper was irresponsible to print them.

they published it for clicks, it's the only explanation i got.

Good for him. I hope he takes them to the fucking cleaners.

Mia Farrow is a demented fucking cunt who can thank nearly all of her comeback later career to Woody Allen.

It's about time that men (IF wrongfully) accused of sexual abuse or other sexual allegations take their accusers to court and sue the fuck out of them. Libel is libel, slander is slander.

Enough with this fucking hysteria that goes beyond Mia Farrow and her hysterical inability to get over the fact that Woody Allen dumped her sorry ass for her adopted daughter. And they've been happily married for 21 years now. Says it all. And that's all that this smear campaign by Farrow is in the end, nothing more. She's a manipulative, deranged fucking cunt.

Sue the peaches out of them, Woody.

R121 Woody does not like “young women” (although it’d still be gross if he did, he’s 83) — he likes children.

Anyone defending him is suspect.

Go away, r121.

It's really obvious what the agenda of somebody is when all they have to say is "Mia is a cunt" repeatedly. They can't discuss anything like an adult, all they do is get really mad and stomp their feet and scream. It's a temper tantrum.

As far as this case goes, whether Allen intended it or not, the blackmail attempt on Amazon and Allen's son Ronan means that this case is now tangled up in that. It's a really interesting situation that has nothing to do with Mia Farrow.

"Whether Allen intended it or not?" That's a ridiculous suggestion.

not to mention, the recent piece of the former 16 yo GF of woody was so transparent: the woman came across as a horny girl who was delighted to be with a rich, famous, director, just like many other girls in the 70s. It was a different time, it's useless to judge it by today's hysterical standards. She then became Fellini's "assistant". And if you knew Fellini you know exactly what that means.

Homosexual tinymeat Brad Pitt fake dated 15 year old girls but people pretend that never happened. I wonder would people have different opinion about Allen if he was a hottie a plastic made hottie like Pitt?

Amazon is doing this because the fact is Woody Allen movies lose a great deal of money.

I always hear Mia's a psycho. I can't say because I don't know her, but I don't know what -is- an appropriate reaction from a mother whose husband leaves her for her just-18 daughter he helped raise. If that happened all the time, I'd have a frame of reference for saying if Mia's over-the-top or not.

But it doesn't, and I don't. I wonder how the women I respect in my own life would react if that happened. I honestly think, if the kid involved was their only child, they'd have killed him and taken their lumps. But Farrow had other kids to think about. I also wonder if the men in my family would have done to him and then taken their legal lumps. Knowing that, whether a twerp like Allen would have even tried it, which makes what happened with Sun Yi appear that much more predatory.

For the 8 millionth time, he didn't help raise- wait, who is this "Sun Yi" you speak of?

Woody is older than God and uglier than poo-poo but still seems to have scored all the reasonably young hot stinkfish he wants... and for free!

R136 I'll just leave this here

Please understand, r133, that Allen did not remotely help raise any of Farrow's children. If you'd like to romanticize her situation, try doing so with some regard for the facts.

And I can't believe we're relitigating this.

wanna see the tim tim movie!!!! show it !!!!

R138 it never really got litigated to begin with.

I meant on this board, r140

[quote] Allen did not remotely help raise any of Farrow's children.

He absolutely helped raise Ronan and Dylan. He was in therapy for physically abusing Ronan, once in front of a psychiatrist, and went to a second therapist for "inappropriate" behavior towards Dylan. (Court docs use the word "inappropriate" but do not specify the nature of the incidents.)

Then while that was going on, he started sleeping with their teen adopted sister, who was still living in the house with the family.

Whether he helped raise Soon-Yi is entirely besides the point.

r142: He helped raise Ronan and Dylan because they were actual his kids--biologically or by adoption.

Whether he helped raise Soon-Yi is entirely the point, in the context in which the comment was made--as a rebuttal to r133 (you?), who made the false statement that Allen began sleeping with Mia's "18 year old daughter that he helped raise". I don't think anyone connected with this sordid business has ever claimed that Woody was involved with raising the older Farrow children, and I think that's particularly the case with Soon-Yi.

[quote]Allen did not remotely help raise any of Farrow's children.

[quote]He helped raise Ronan and Dylan because they were actual his kids--biologically or by adoption.

Ronan and Dylan are "Farrow's children." You are separating the kids out as the adopted "being Mia's" and the "other two" being Woody's. Just like Woody Allen does. That's pretty gross for a multitude of reasons, but mostly it's inaccurate. He helped raise two of Farrow's children, at least.

[quote]as a rebuttal to r133 (you?)

No.

Colloquially, people are going to say that Allen was a father figure to all of Farrow's children. In a way, he was, because he was raising two of the kids who lived in the same house and who were (adopted) siblings of the other children. Further, there are photos of Allen taking a young Soon-Yi to dinner, basketball games, etc. either by herself or with some of the other adopted kids. He was at least active in the role of "Mom's boyfriend who does family stuff with us sometimes, and is raising my two adopted siblings."

You may not like it, but it's the truth.

No, r144, your interpretation is not the truth. It's your interpretation. And what "people" say "colloquially" can't--or shouldn't--be used as a factual argument to support a point of view.

Defending Woody by saying he wasn’t actively involved in raising Soon-Yi is the biggest stretch of all time. He was married to her mother; he was in a parental role. It wouldn’t be all that much better if he wasn’t so I don’t know why his fans desperately grasp at that.

And I don't know why his detractors can't make their points, such as they are, without inventing circumstances.

Whether or not one is a "fan"--and I'm not, particularly--the fact is that Allen was not actively involved in raising Soon-Yi and was not in a parental role. Mia's own tell-all memoir makes clear that they lived separate lives in separate homes and he didn't interact very much with any of Mia's children, apart from their biological child Satchel and adopted child Dylan. The children themselves say this.

And another fact: they were not married.

Woody Allen doesn't have enough $$$$$ yet? He seems really greedy. But Amazon will probably end up settling, just to make him go away.

They'd be smart to settle. I think he's got a winnable case.

[quote]Defending Woody by saying he wasn’t actively involved in raising Soon-Yi is the biggest stretch of all time. He was married to her mother; he was in a parental role. It wouldn’t be all that much better if he wasn’t so I don’t know why his fans desperately grasp at that.

Lies, he never married Mia.

He wasn't married to Mia and he wasn't strictly in a parental role at all times; he didn't even live there.

That doesn't make his relationship with Soon-Yi appropriate. Simply for the sake of his own two kids, who he was having SERIOUS problems with and who considered Soon-Yi their sister, he should not have been sleeping with her.

There's no defense of his behavior with his kids, which is why I think the defenders latch on to "Soon-Yi wasn't his legal daughter" and "there's no proof of Dylan's claims." Okay, sure to both of those things. But there is AMPLE evidence of his abuse of Ronan and inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and his nasty behavior toward all the kids at various times, and his choice to cheat on their mother by sleeping with their adopted teen sister as he was supposedly working to repair the familial relationship.

You can't defend that, so people don't. They talk about the things that are murkier.

I agree that he was an awful parent to his two kids. I agree that it was inappropriate and showed lousy judgment to sleep with Soon-Yi. I don't think he's an admirable human being.

But too many of his detractors are just rabid, slinging accusations that have absolutely no basis in fact. It drives me nuts. They'd do fine advancing their position with facts, but instead they lurch into high drama with a lot of invented scenarios grounded in nothing.

[quote] It's your interpretation.

I interpret nothing at R144.

Ronan and Dylan are Mia Farrow's kids. That is a fact, not interpretation.

Woody was raising both of them. That is fact. They lived in the same house and are adopted siblings of Soon-Yi. Also fact. There ARE photos of Allen taking Soon-Yi to basketball games or being with her on family outings. Here's one from 1986.

Meanwhile, you're going on at length about "brainwashing," which doesn't even exist, and insisting that demonstrable, provable fact is fiction.

You need help. I mean it, you need to find out why you're willing to lie and make up stories to defend a stranger who doesn't care if you live or die.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Actually Allen was with the family all day everyday unless working but he slept in his own apartment .

[quote]Did Woody have signed contracts?

No. Woody and a billion dollar corporation made a multimillion dollar deal on a super duper secret handshake.

Team Mia!

Woody's judgement is suspect at best. With all the women around, he has to fuck Mia's daughter? The man is a sick pig.

Woody is creepy and is basically admitting that he can’t get hired anymore because of his image so he’s suing confirming everything with the “you already knew I was a creep” defense. Can we take back his oscars? Can his children sue him now? You can’t shit where you eat. He’s done

Whether Woody is a creep or not, Amazon isn't getting out of this. They should pay him what they owe him and move on.

r159, not son much creepy as unbankable. The public has finally realized the Emperor has no clothes on, and his movies lose a ton of money.

This isn't a Woody Mia thing. He's suing Amazon. The outcome will not vindicate him or prove Dylan is wrong. His legal argument is that nothing has changed since he made the deal with Amazon. Amazon knew his history when they signed the contract. His guilt or innocence isn't an issue. Amazon is saying he has said and done things that violate the morals clause or are otherwise damaging to his brand.

Nice framing of the issues, r162.

We can't know whether Allen has a case without seeing the terms of the contract. It's highly unlikely Amazon made a deal where they couldn't shelve the film if they had good cause to believe releasing it would lose money. By the same token, it's also unlikely Allen signed a deal where Amazon could shelve it for any old reason.

Amazon obviously knew of the old allegations against Allen--in fact they made the deal after the backlash on Allen from Dylan's and Ronan's public statements. Since then, Wonder Wheel flopped, a bunch of Rainy Day stars publicly apologized for taking part in the movie, and Allen did a really poorly conceived couple of interviews where he basically whatevered the allegations. Super bad PR all around. It's very possible Amazon has legit cause to shelve the film if they think they will release it to a loss. So while it's related to the old allegations, it's too simplistic to say they're just dropping it for that reason.

Add to that Amazon has it's own platform where they could quietly stream the film in lieu of a theatrical release. It's hard to imagine they'd opt to shelve it completely if such a release was needed to stave off this type of lawsuit. Unless the Amazon lawyers are REALLY dumb (doubtful), Allen probably will have to eat it.

And as was said above, NONE of this is about Allen's actual guilt or innocence. This is pure contract dispute--similar to when Charlie Sheen sued for getting dropped from "Two and a Half Men." He never disputed he was a shitbag who was making the show/network look bad. His argument was that per the contract, that was not sufficient basis to drop him (and in that case he was likely right, gross as that may seem, and WB had to settle).

^ Forgot to add, there was also that miniseries with Miley Cyrus that was released to horrible reviews and that Allen himself publicly wrote off. I don't think Amazon reveals streaming numbers, but it's probably a safe bet that was a huge flop also.

Woody Allen's legacy will be tainted forever. He can get all the millions he wants from Amazon, but that's all that it is to it.

My guess is Amazon will settle for Allen's out-of-pocket costs to finance the film, but he's not getting anywhere near $60+ million.

True R166. Big stars used to line up to work with him. They all knew it would get them serious actor cred if not an Oscar nomination or Oscar. Now they're apologizing for working with him. He was coasting on his past rep as a great filmmaker. Everyone has figured out he's not that good anymore. He shouldn't complain though. He had a very good run. He wasn't ostracized after the scandal. Mia hardly worked after the split. He kept going, making movies and getting accolades. If he'd retired a decade ago his legacy would be fine.

I wouldn't read too much significance into the apologies of all these big stars; I doubt their apologies have anything to do with the morality of Allen's situation, or the quality of his films. They simply jumped on the bandwagon.

Agree, R168.

No one said otherwise, R169. It's not as though none of them knew about the allegations before signing on to work with him.

R169 I didn't say the people apologizing were doing it for moral reason. The fact is it used to be prestigious to work with Allen and now it's embarrassing. It doesn't matter why or what people's motivations are. It used to be everyone ignored the allegations because it was good for their careers and now it's bad for their careers to work with him. This lawsuit will not change that.

As for the quality of his work, he was getting criticism before Me Too. There were suggestions he was phoning it in. He was out of touch with the modern world. He was making movies he'd already made before. His movies haven't been making as much money as they used to and the awards aren't coming anymore. The lawsuit won't change that either.

Maybe he can have a hit put on Dylan. And Mia.

And, agree with R172 again.

R173 that won't make his movies any more profitable.

Why the hell would Amazon enter into a movie deal with Woody Allen in the first place? Nobody is interested in his movies anymore. And in addition there's the sordid scandal surrounding him. If Amazon execs had had any sense they wouldn't have touched him with a ten foot pole. He's poison.

r172, it strains credulity to state that the actors who distanced themselves from Allen in the midst of #Metoo and the renewed Dylan allegations did so because they believed he was no longer creating prestige films.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

It's a sign of how much clout he's lost that PR-wise it's more beneficial to distance themselves from him than defend working with him.

Just a few short years ago the exact opposite was true. Cate Blanchett won the Oscar for Blue Jasmine despite Dylan openly attacking her for working with Allen. Had Kate Winslet done Wonder Wheel a few short years prior, she would have been an Oscar contender for it as well. Instead she had to basically stop promoting the film because every time she opened her mouth about Allen, it backfired onher. And she got no award season attention for it, despite getting good reviews for her performance and being an actress all the awards shows show love to.

R176, businesses like Netflix and Amazon are always looking for original content. It doesn’t matter if it’s garbage, all that matters is that it’s something new to offer to their subscribers. The Allen deal might have made sense because his films never cost very much and he produces them quickly.

R177 you didn't misunderstand. Appearing in his films used to be very good for your career. It could either get you a nomination or a least establish you as a serious actor who should get awards someday. It was a huge honor to work with him. As R178 pointed out this isn't true anymore. This is partly because of Me Too, but most aren't distancing themselves because of Dylan. People still kept right on working with him after she called out Blanchet. They're distancing themselves because appearing in his films and defending him won't help them anymore. His new films aren't prestigious anymore. It happened in the past few years. Me Too didn't order people to stop working with him. Me Too isn't a person or even an organization. It's a hashtag. It's an idea. It's a shift in how the public perceives sexual privilege.

It wasn't just metoo, although that certainly didn't help. In the 70s and 80s, Allen could do no wrong--practically all his films were hailed as excellent, some masterpieces. In the 90s his output wasn't as solid, but he still had a few strong films and his weaker ones were weak only by the standards of his prior films. By the 2000s, his output was really erratic. For every 1 good film, he had 3-4 clunkers, and nothing was as strong as his earlier work (except Blue Jasmine, which may be right up there with his best movies). By the 2010s, a consensus was forming that he was putting out way too many films and that his content had become too repetitive and uncreative--ESPECIALLY when it came to the subject of an older man becoming obsessed with a younger woman. By the time Wonder Wheel came out, it just felt like "enough already!--doesn't he have anything else to say?"

Just look at the critical response of his filmography and compare earlier decades to this one. Part of the reason he's become vulnerable to metoo with OLD allegations is that his films aren't consistently good anymore.

If he made a laugh out loud movie like "Sleeper" again all would be forgiven.

Good, fight back, Woody. I wish he'd sue Chalamet too for trashing a film that wasn't released yet. What an asshole.

R182 For me, it's Bananas. I cry from laughing at that movie.

The only thing that baffles me about his recent output is how Blue Jasmine got such raves, when it's a de-sexed and clumsy Tennessee Williams ripoff.

He rips everything he does off from others, of course; that's his brand. But Blue Jasmine was terrible and it's already forgotten, not because of MeToo but because it's boring.

Well, Woody has gotten funding and is commencing production on his next film in Spain according to the New York Times. Looks like a whoopsie for Amazon, who will not be involved supposedly. Interesting.

"Well, Woody has gotten funding and is commencing production on his next film in Spain according to the New York Times."

Which will flop, if it ever gets made. Who the hell would finance a Woody Allen movie now? All child molestation accusations aside, his movies suck and nobody wants to see them.

According to the article at R186, his films do make a little bit of money overseas, but I think they're generally made at a loss.

Am I the only one who really wants to know is if he's Ronan's biological dad?

Or if that's Mia's fuck-you (you're a pedo, you have a small dick, and the smart kid's not yours).

allen's movies do quite well in Europe, especially in France, Italy and UK.

Allen is a genius. Crimes and Misdemeanors , Star Dust memories and so many more- pure masterpiece. Creep...yeah maybe. Only man to be attracted to 17 year olds, um hardly. Different pathology from pedophilia. He isn't one and that's why no other kids (he's worked around so many) have ever come forward. Zero. Mia was a woman scorned and Woody was a jerk in a VERY toxic sudo "family" situation. Mia's adopted children (those that didn't die alone in poverty and/or commit suicide) have spoken out about her abuse. Dylan is troubled. I like Ronin but his obsession with being Momma's golden boy is just gross. Woody Allen has paid enough. I hope he wins this.

Woody has plenty of fans in the US too. Including some of us so diehard that we hate actors like Ellen Fucking Page for retro bitching and especially Timothee Chalamet for trashing a movie that hadn't been released yet (in the name of MeToo bullshit pressure).

What will be most intriguing going forward is whether or not A RAINY DAY IN NEW YORK is ever released... it's so stupid to just let it languish, but apparently part of Woody's Amazon deal is they have give it a theatrical presentation in 500 theaters, so they can't just do an Amazon release on streaming. 2018 is the first year since 1969 he didn't have at least one new film released to the public. The new executive seems dim ("We're focusing on sexy date-night romcoms now", etc.) so it seems unlikely they will release RAINY DAY under her reign. But, stranger things have happened.

Bravo r187. I'm glad somebody agrees with me, and I think most people do. He throws movies at the public that demand flattery for his lifestyle and expects people to throw themselves in front of a train to salute his genius. I hope they throw him in jail and he rots in hell.

And he's too much of a genius to accept awards! What a pretentious egotistical bastard!

How many Academy Awards does Mia have? What work has she had since the separation? Besides ROSEMARY'S BABY, what meaningful work did she ever do in a 50-year career that didn't involve Woody? He has won four Academy Awards, with Best Screenplay in 2012, plus Penelope Cruz and Cate Blanchett both winning for his films in the last ten years. And, lest we forget, he showed up and actually directed a segment off the post-9/11 Oscar ceremony presentation. Awards don't matter... except when they do.

And even with Woody, she never got an Oscar nomination for anything and he’s directed multiple other women in Oscar-winning performances.

It grates my ass that people keep giving this dirty old prick money to make more movies.

He can't help it if he's such a genius!

R193 Yeah it definitely isn't coming out while she is in charge of Amazon's movies. I wouldn't be surprised if the movie is given back to Woody as part of the settlement for the lawsuit he filed against Amazon.

R196/R197 I'm not really sure what your point is, but Mia was about 35 when she starting dating Woody and already had a slew of movies and theater credits. I'm pretty sure her biggest box office successes came before she even met him. And I think she was one of the first Americans to join the Royal Shakespeare Company.