After Day in Court, Woody Allen Tells It Like It Is

I have laughed enough via' Woody's films, i give him a 'pass' on the sun yi thing, its not pedophilia but it was creepy.

Soon yi is like 40 years old, so if Woody was a pedophile he would have dumped her and moved onto a newer model, say a Abigal Breslin or a Dakota Fanning.

She's still his stepdaughter - and, while that does not make him a pedophile, it still makes him a massively inappropriate pervert (no matter how good his movies are!)

The Woodman is no pedophile. His wife may be young, but she dresses in granny clothes.

His wife is also his stepdaughter.

If he was a bus driver or a waiter instead of a famous film director beloved by the art house crowd, you'd think he's a sick degenerate.

And you'd be right.

I hate pedophiles, therefore I hate Woody Allen.

Why does everyone call Woody Allen a pedophile??

Son-Yi Previn was 22 years old. Hardly underage. Woody Allen was not her step-father because Mia Farrow and Woody Allen were not married.

If ANYONE is a pervert, it's Dov Charney. Not only does he fantasize about being Terry Richarson, but his semi-pornographic advertisements, make him one of the sleaziest entrepreneurs of the the 21st century.

Butterbutter,

Woody Allen was Soon Yi Previn's mother's boyfriend - in effect, her de facto stepfather.

Which means that by dating and marrying his stepdaughter, he was engaged in adult incest.

And no matter how good you think his films are, that still makes him a pervert.

Woody Allen was accused of abusing kids during a very heated custody battle a long time ago. He was never even charged in criminal court. The "molested kids" are now adults who could sue the hell out of him, if they wanted. The could write books and go on TV about him, if they wanted. But, they don't.

Maybe because it's bull.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Yes, it is. (Google bayes.)

In any case, I have no evidence that Politburo is a pedophile, either.

This post does serve as a sort of litmus test of gothamist posters -- the dimmer ones have all shown up to bash Woody Allen. Weird.

Next on Fox and Friends: *Is* Politburo a pedophile??? Tune in to find out!

Absence of evidence? What about innocent until proven guilty? I heard about that somewhere.

I share your beliefs about the whole situation and should have been more clear. My point was that the fact that no one has sued him or written a tell-all doesn't prove that "it's bull".

Dov Charney had one but lost it on the way to the Ravenite Social Club where he's working on his appeal.

oops- replying to Snoopy..

the NY Post points out it is, however, more money than Vicky Cristina Barcelona made during it's opening weekend

I was thinking along the same lines. At this point in his career, Allen is pretty much irrelevant in the motion picture business.

Are you taking foreign sales into account? Because he is very important in Europe.

He's big in Aarhus and Malmo, and in Helsinki, there's a district where his movies rent out at a 5 Markka premium.

So Woody Allen is to Finland as Jerry Lewis is to France?

Umm... no. Wesley Snipes is irrelevant. Woody Allen can still scrape together $20 - $30 million of capital to fund his films, with total creative control and cast approval. If you think that's irrelevant, give it a try.

He's coasting on his past successes, which gives him connections. If you look at his writer/director filmography, you'll see that his movies since the mid 80s have been eminently forgettable. I doubt most people have even heard of most of them. I can't remember the last time any of my friends said they just had to see the new Woody Allen movie. I used to enjoy his films back in the 70s, but nothing he does anymore is interesting.

FYI - You not interested in his films != Him being irrelevant in the industry

How did we get from discussing figures to getting personal about it?

If you really want to know how badly his movies do, just compare the domestic gross with other non-blockbusters that don't have the Allen name behind it. Ever hear of Hotel for Dogs? I haven't, and it's at $73 million. Tyler Perry's Madea Goes to Jail is at $90M. 17 Again made $23M just in its first weekend and is closing on $60M. And Paul Blart, Mall Cop is close to $150M. I doubt anyone would call that a masterpiece. It all makes $23M look anemic.

His other movies do even worse. Cassandra's Dream didn't even crack seven figures. Melinda and Melinda was pulled after less than $4M. In fact, his movies for the last decade have averaged less than $10M domestic.

Because you changed your argument. First you said he was irrelevant, and when that was disputed, you said that you and your friends had no interest in his films.

I don't think anyone claimed that Allen has, or ever had, mass appeal, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with Paul Blart.

I didn't "change my argument." I was responding to somebody else. Notice the "replied to..." references.

I really enjoyed Match Point and it was hardly forgettable. However, it took me a few minutes to remember what Vicky Christina Barcelona was about even though I watched it within the past few months. All I could remember at first was that Penelope Cruz was great in it.

Over the last 20-30 years, the movies he's made but didn't act in are far superior to the ones in which he appears. I can only think of two movies in which he appeared that were great: Annie Hall and Bananas.

Manhattan was his best film.

IMHO.

I actually didn't like Manhattan having only first seen it within the last few years. I found it self-indulgent and boring. The cinematography and music are nice but the plot is really lacking. Plus seeing him date a much younger woman knowing how his personal life turned out made me squeamish.

fwiw i hate every woody allen movie i have ever seen. That might have something to do with the fact that I am neither jewish nor from new york, though.

'Deconstructing Harry' and 'Crimes and Misdemeanors' are both worth seeing, if you haven't. His best IMO and less 'NYC insider' material.

The movie grossed $23 million, and cost $15.5 per IMDB.

The opening weekend take seems irrelevant, unless you're looking to make a cheap shot.

I wasn't referring to the opening weekend. I was referring to his career for the last 20 years or so.

$23 million BO for a $15 million movie is not good, if you know anything about Hollywood accounting. A movie must make 2-3x its budget before it even begins to show a profit, assuming the studio even admits that it's profitable. You have to take into account such things as the theater operators' cut, marketing, distribution, etc. Adding in DVD sales, that movie might net $10 million tops. Not a successful movie by any standards.

Can't you find a more recent photo of the pedophile?

This is one of those scenarios where I was hoping everyone involved would lose.

Both are sexual perverts with far too much money. In another life they would be friends...probably in jail.

But which one would be on top?