My Photo

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad

Photo Albums

« Hounddogged | Main | Littlest Assassin Ever Lives in Iran »

September 17, 2008

Comments

Me

http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crimeblogqueennm16.jpg

http://img398.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crimeblogshrek2ut14.jpg

Thanks, Dakotanator...

Me

http://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crimeblogstarpowergp18.jpg

http://img167.imageshack.us/my.php?image=crimebloginvestigateki12.jpg


Yep, they should be investigated for making a poster that looks just like hundreds of other posters. Lame

Tre Benson

Must be tiring to have to chase me all over the place scooping up odds and ends to try and make a case for this movie. It seriously just makes you look desperate and me like a bully. You defending this pitiful movie and perverse storyline, and me slapping you around for it. Its sad, really is. Why not just walk away, the movie will be history in 2 weeks, get over it.

I will agree with you about the filmmakers not knowing what they were doing was wrong. Obviously they never saw it being wrong, Joy Fanning has been mighty quiet so has Dakota's agent, they know it was a bad choice. The film was edited to remove questionable content, self censored. But all of that is sort of the old excuse , "honest officer she said she was 18" people still have to be held accountable.

Look as long as the law is what it is, as long as your "freedom" interrupts my freedom we have a problem and Ill fight for my rights.

Is it right to come into a town with no money duping crew and vendors out of their money and time just because Dakota's window of opportunity is there? Is it buyer beware on the part of all those whose checks bounced, whose rent was late, whose late fees amounted to hundreds of dollars? Is it buyers beware when a film production company comes to town with a big Starring Dakota Fanning stamped on top of every IOU? Is it setting good president for all the other small budget independents wanting to produce their movie to follow in the muddy footprints of such a irresponsible production?

You tell me production stuck to the SAG guidelines working with those children and I'll call you a damn liar. I know for a fact that's a lie.

Pack it in, the circus is folding it's tent, there will soon be something somewhere for you to champion another liberal cause but this one is over, ended in a shitty compromise.

Me

So it comes down to SAG rules? Did they work these kids longer than they should have? Absolutly. Did they pay the required pay scale set by SAG rules? No way. Did they keep the nosey busy bodies off a closed set? Not a chance. So file a grievance with the Screen Actors Guild and have them fined.

Call the Humane Society because they killed a chicken then glued feathers onto a frozen bird they got from the grocery store to cover it up.

Better yet, produce a crew member willing to testify in court under oath that they witnessed the sexual explortation of a minor or the making of a child porn movie.

Tre, Marc, Steve, Paul, Ted, Bill, all the kings men and all the kings horses, and every self righteous know it all used every dirty trick in the book, rumors, speculation, half thruths, threats, and down right lies and all of them combined couldn't stop this little movie from getting to the theater.

In fact your crusade is what got it there. This movie would have never been completed. The director was busted. It would have been sloppily edited together like her last movie, sent to a couple of small film festivals and went to straight to dvd. No one would have even noticed. The controversy created by you guys helped pay for the finished product and ensured it's completion. Good going.

I talked to the director, some crew members, and some of the cast. I got their side of the story. Every word confirmed later in news reports and interviews. What I never got from anyone is evidence they did anything wrong. Like Connie Jordan said, "I know you had people that said they saw stuff, but you would not tell me who those people were". I would have liked to hear from the actual people who were there instead of your interpretation of events. I guess that will never happen.

As far as the crew members getting scammed out of money, they fucking deserved it. A quick google search and a trip to blockbuster and they could have found out what they were up against. They read the script, they knew what was involved, and they knew this women had no money from the start. Should have passed on this one, got a real job and waited till something better came along.

The venders, suppliers, and craft services have a legal remedy. Go to the court house, file a lawsuit, get a judement, and put a lien on the movie. Just like any other business would do.

I have no sympathy for these people. Lie with dogs you get fleas. Simple as that. They should have used more common sense.

At this point I don't even need to see the movie. I know every detail from it's conception to the final product. Sounds rather boring and no worse than what is already on the shelves at most video stores.

I'll take the shitty compromise and consider it a victory. All my effort paid off. The minority didn't dictate what is right or wrong for everyone else. We actually get to judge for ourselves.

Tre Benson

It's been obvious that your chief complaint has been WHO are the people who claimed they saw something inappropriate on set during the production of Hounddog. It has always been my position that I am not at liberty to disclose those people, individuals separate and apart of one another, who came to me with their story which I confirmed myself by talking with a couple of other friends of mine who worked on the movie.

I work in the business, have been for the past 20 years around a set one way or another, I know what a script is and I know the reason for it. I also know that the majority of the people who worked this movie never read the script, hell most people working commercials dont even look at the script much less even know what product it is the commercial is for. Most of these people do the work as a laborer, one day at a time, one paycheck to the next, they could care less about the art.

I have not released the names to the public because I will not betray a source. For any reason. In my initial complaint to the DA's office and Social Services, prior to any national scandal but when we began talking about it on our show and on the website, I do not believe the rape scene had even taken place. My information at that point was other incidents coupled with the script caused me concern enough to alert authorities to do their own investigation, which we know never happened. Then after being told of the rape scene we fired off a letter to the DA and was told the matter was already being looked into, as in I was not the first to contact them. No one, absolutely no one contacted me and asked for any information what-so-ever. It was only AFTER the fact, after the letter gifted to the marketing department of Hounddog by the DA's office did Ms. Jordan and I have our first conversation, on air, about it. Jordan then and only then asked me for names and I refused to do so without their approval. I told those I talked to that they needed to contact the DA's office and they basically laughed at me.

These people mentioned what they did to me for whatever reason, but I can assure you that in no way did they believe what they witnessed was a crime. They just thought the whole thing was simply a descriptive analogy as to how out of control the production was and how inept a key crew member was at his job. They did not come to me to be some poster child in a fight they could care less about, not because they are immoral but because they aren't political or child advocates. It's not their job, their job is to work on movies in order to support their family and no one on movies talks to the media about what goes on, be it Hounddog or Black Knight. There is a reason why you don't hear of stories about john Travolta or Bruce Willis. It's just not done.

When you said, "Lie with dogs you get fleas" as a pun on Hounddog? If so pretty clever. To some degree I have to agree with you on that. You have to know what you are getting yourself into, but when you look back on where the state of the film business was in Wilmington people were desperate, many were out of state working and it is out of the respect I have for those that TURNED DOWN the offer to work on Hounddog that I first took this banner of craziness in hand and waved it for 15 minutes on a radio show that about 42 people listen to while they drive to the golf course. You flatter me with the amount of influence you claim I have on all this. I believe you would be better off spending your efforts complaining to the New York Daily News which actually has a few more people paying attention to them than me. They were the ones saying Dakota was naked etc. That was the shot heard round the world.


And BTW I do believe the controversy helped them raise money, I told Jen Gatlen that and Eric Parkinson. I didn't believe for one second that this was hurting anyone. They played the "poor pitiful me" card one too many times for me to buy it. Proof of the pudding is the "you won" white flag Parkinson sent out just before the premiere. As if.

Me

I'm sure you know now that I set out to discredit all the claims about what happened. Mostly because of what was posted on that one blog site where I first encountered Steve where someone claimed there were two rape scenes. Claiming that Daddy raped Lewellen, beating her, while the director encourage it, and a copy of the video assist was sent to someone that was going to give it to the FBI.

I knew that was complete BS. I asked nicely for them to remove that lie and then Steve and his cronies kept attacking me. That's when he spread these rumors to other sites and it spread like wildfire. It just wasn't right. It became open season and anything could be said. The lies and rumors took on a life of their own. His endless speculation about what was happening behind the scenes wasn't even close to being true.

The personal attacks and the threats were never called for. The claims of child porn were never warranted. I understood his crusade but I never agreed with his methods. I knew a lot of people were attacking the movie because of the director's previous movie had religious overtures. This one had even more. I don't think they gave a rats ass about the welfare of these children, they were more concerned about the attack against their religious beliefs. How dare this women use a movie to attack their religion.

In my conversations with the director she seemed sincere. I don't think she set out to make a child porn movie. I don't think she set out to take advantage of anyone. I don't think she set out to make a statement or to promote sexual scenes involving kids. She just wanted to make a movie that other women could relate too.

I agree she used people to make a name for herself and to break into the business. Played the controversy to her advantage. Everyone got too emotional instead of just looking at the facts.

Scene 39 is in the final cut. The kids are never nude, they wear underwear, they lay on the floor but never touch or fondle or anything like that. This time she cut out the snake at gunpoint scene. At least that is what I was told. Most of the other scenes are in the movie but implied but not seen. The reviews are mixed but most people without an agenda say it's not that bad. Stupid, but not bad.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

So now it's become a case of "stupid, but not bad"! I tend to think you're trying to ease out of it in view of recent developments.

As to that alleged "2nd rape scene". I mentioned it in passing a little while ago for the first time in a LONG time. As I said back then, information obtained without independent corroboration is to be classified as "Improbable". When "Fly-On-The-Wall" first posted that, I attempted to obtain that corroboration... and failed. I learned investigative techniques quite some time ago and have adhered to them.

When I find, from ongoing sources, that previously accepted or discredited reports must be reclassified, I do so and announce the fact. It's not just a matter of my personal credibility, but a matter of an honest search for the truth. Let me remind you that, before "Hounddog", I was Dakota Fanning's stalwart supporter online because of her tremendous potential as a good influence on her generation. No one hoped more that the initial reports about "Hounddog" were false. When, through much research, I was forced to the conclusion that they were basically true, I took up the challenge and faced the reality.

You seem to think that I've been in this for so long because I'm some sort of "religious fanatic" (as you just called me on my site) or because I have some sick fascination or hatred toward some underaged movie actress. I just care about kids, "Me". I care about their mental and physical health. This is the prime duty of all adults. Our Christian faith tells us this is so. Our hearts do likewise.

BTW: That crack about Kampmeier not setting out "to make a child porn movie" is one of the most unbelievable pieces of tripe you've ever posted. Sorry for my bluntness, but there it is. She obsessively worked on this thing for TEN YEARS, "Me". Since Wilmington, she's continued to. Do you think she's somehow clueless as to her own, long-term handiwork?! She's a grown woman... not a little mind-numbed, Hollywood-inbred 12 year old like Dakota Fanning was, essentially still is... and will likely be forevermore. Kampmeier wanted money and fame and was willing to use children in the worst way she could in order to obtain them. She's a monster.

P.S. I just posted my new column, "Hounddog: "Sneak Premiere" and the Clean Teen... Who Never Was."

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me": Is Dakotanator still running loose on IMDB? I haven't visited there for quite a while. Don't have the time, usually. If you go back there anytime soon, tell Dakko that Geneos (me!) sends his regards and regrets his enforced absence. And tell him, if you would, that he's welcome to visit my site... as long as he keeps it clean. His ideological buddies Renner and Steak-o; likewise.

Humm..
hounddog is not the only childporn movie
look at this one wtf is rong with hollywood

http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=40379

Me

Where is Bill and Ted?

Towelhead is TEN TIMES WORSE than Hounddog. It premiered at Sundance. It was re-edited to remove several sex scenes involving a 13 year old character. It was filmed in Sept 2006, two months after Hounddog. It opened to theaters five days before Hounddog.

NOT ONE WORD from the religious fanatics. Not one boycott. Not one protester. Of course it didn't have a religious theme and it wasn't filmed in NC.

From the same writer as "American Beauty" another child sex movie. The first movie to be released to theaters with sexual scenes involving underage characters and underage characters and adults. Sorry Steve, Hounddog is not the first.

Yet not a word from Steve and his kind. Why is that?

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

You're wrong in every particular... as so often.

"Towelhead" has been noted as well. It's a thoroughly disgusting and utterly pornographic movie. The only thing that renders it lesser to "Hounddog" in perversity is the fact that actual children were not involved. Legally, that is. I don't personally consider 18 year olds to be functional adults and using very young legal-adults in sleazy plots AS children is an old dodge that pornmongers have traditionally used. They did so here.

However, if you check out the latest WND feed, you'll find that an initiative with the U.S. Department of Justice is now underway, citing both "Hounddog" and "Towelhead" as objects for investigation under the U.S. Code. I wholeheartedly welcome this development. It's what I've been seeking for two years. And, like you, I'd add a few other films to the mix.

As I often pointed out, there was at least one other film prior to "Hounddog" that broke the "child porn barrier"... "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things". Shot in Knoxville in 2005, it's abuse of child actor Jimmy Bennett ("Daddy Day Care") in scenes of homosexual molestation may have been the worst crime yet in American feature films. But- again- it garnered no attention at the time as it only showed in six "art theaters" nationwide. I've never found the DVD. Nor were there any current "name actors" to elicit an audience.

Few ever heard of poor Jimmy Bennett... but everyone knows of Dakota Fanning. It was "Hounddog's" unremitting depravity of content plus the starpower then inherent in Dakota's name that brought the entire issue to public attention. Remember: "Hounddog" was the first OVERT attempt to legitimize child porn in the mainstream. All such films are abhorrent and require justice, whether they use children or pseudo-children in their content. But "Hounddog" stands as the foremost exemplar and the greatest danger.

So you see, "Me", culture watchers and Christian groups have not ignored the total issue. We just have our perspectives in order. The word is OUT and action is being taken.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

Across the popular culture- movies included- this plague of child exploitation continues. The rash of such films that have appeared since "Hounddog" was shot is not it's sole result, but I maintain that it's a major one. Despite the fact that "Hounddog" has been a financial and public relations disaster for all who've associated with it, it remains a salient point that none of it's principals have ever been prosecuted. Yet.

It's also a fact that the foreign circuit and DVD sales will (if allowed to happen) eventually turn a profit. This is a key point that Industry people well understand. If child porn films can be made without legal consequence, they WILL be made. That's why these legal initiatives against "Hounddog", both state and federal, are so welcome and their success so necessary.

In the meantime, I'll keep plugging away as best I can. Best wishes and stay in touch!

Me

"The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things" did have well known actors, Peter Fonda, Jeremy Renner, Sprouse Twins, Ben Foster, Maryilyn Manson, Jeremy Sisto, Micheal Pitt, Winona Ryder, and Asia Argento.

It was an All-Star cast. It made LESS money than Hounddog it's opening weekend. The dvd can be found at Blockbuster or Netflix and most dvd rental stores.

It was filmed in 2003 and played in 57 theaters worldwide. The drug and sex scenes make Hounddog look like a Disney movie in comparison.

It propelled Jimmy Bennet and the Sprouse twins into mega stars. It wasn't Jimmy Bennet in the rape scene it was Dylan Sprouse.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

That's an interesting commentary. I was aware that Peter Fonda and Winona Ryder (faded stars even then!) had bit parts in it. I was also aware that the Sprouse twins were in the cast. It was my impression, however, that the Sprouses' parts were also minor and that it was Jimmy Bennett (hardly a megastar!) who was directly abused in his role as Asia Argento's son. Are you sure on that?

Of course, the fact that Jimmy and the Sprouses were in any way involved in this rank movie is criminal. Like I've said before, it's the one movie I know of that may have exceeded "Hounddog" in its depravity toward children. Again, though, it attracted little attention through its lack of starpower. Dakota corrected that pornmakers' oversight in that respect.

But, once again, you try to divert the issue into one of careers and comparisons. I couldn't care less for the status of any actor's career... except when it's exalted on the basis of child abuse. Nor is this movie or any other like it- past or present, foreign or domestic- any excuse for child exploitation... much less explicit child pornography. You need to get your mind out of the Hollywood gutter.

WOW this is f*** up
------------------------------------
http://wip.warnerbros.com/towelhead/
------------------------------------
what did they see on set of hounddog y
did so meny see what was going on and y dident they do anything about it tell it was to late [ if i was on that set at the time i would have called right then]
y did they reedit the movie what they hide
y they have a 12yr old now 14 stand up for hir self who saw hir nude or siad she looked nude. was she!! or not did david
realy getin the bed nude with her on set
lol no but one would have to ask..

Me

The Sprouse twins are mega stars, you can't turn on the Disney channel without them being on. Jimmy Bennet has four movies currently in production along with the 20 or so movies already on the shelf.

Jimmy was in the first half of the movie,
he is subjected to drug use and loud parties (all implied of course) then the mother gets married and runs away with his step fater, he returns and has to care for the boy who then rapes him (all implied, the boy is not even in the scene, all you see is the man's face for ten seconds then it cuts away) he is then abandoned and it cuts away to a hospital scene where doctors TALK about the abuse while he lays on a bed. Rider is the theapist that helps him with the abuse but all you see is closeups of his face. He wasn't even present when she is talking. Most of Jimmy Bennet's scenes are closeups of his face and reactions to the other characters. The storyline is achieved in the editing. He wasn't subjected to anything.

He is then sent to his grandparents (Peter Fonda) the worst scene of the entire movie is when he is forcebly babtized in a bath tub and then told to repent. That was heartbreaking. Then he has to endure relgious teachings by Peter Fonda. Poor kid.

That's it. A bunch of closeups of his face and reactions to other characters. He doesn't say much until he goes to his grandparents and is subjected to all the religious stuff.

The second half of the movie is with the Sprouse twins. Cole is a street preacher speaking the word then his mother shows up and takes him away. Now he is back into the life of loud parties, drugs, and abuse. The mother becomes a stripper then they get a place to live. He starts dressing like a woman and acting like a woman. He tries to seduce Manson (Asia plays the part in sort of a dream scene pretending to be him pretending to be her) he rapes him (not seen) all you see is her rection when she finds out, he then returns to another cycle of abuse until she tries to poison him.

As with all of these movies including Hounddog the storyline is achieved in the editing. Almost 80% of the scenes involving the minors they are filmed alone in closeup then it's edited together and you see their reactions to the other characters. Since they have very few lines there was no need to read the script. All they do for most of the movie is sit in front of a camera. Look this way, look that, way while they are filmed alone.

You really should do more research before making your liberous claims. If you actually watched the movie you would know these kids were not subjected to anything worse than any other movie they have been in. Watch it closely and objectively and you will see they are almost always alone when being filmed.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

You mean to say that Jimmy's cinematic travails were all "implied"? How many times have we heard that one in respect to "Hounddog"? What did that boy have to do on that set that was later edited to present this "implication"? What did he, a child, have to learn and understand in the process... like Dakota did? Once again, we're talking about children, here. Real living, breathing kids. Not wax dummies.

And again, I don't begrudge Jimmy Bennett, the Sprouse Twins or any other child actor their careers. But consider: If something like "Heart" and "Hounddog" is considered a necessary impetus to such a career- and if such productions are legitimized- then what does that portend for other children in motion pictures or television? This is a point I've been making constantly and from the beginning.

This is child pornography, "Me". No matter what glib and standardized excuses you present for it, this still represents the rankest form of human depravity. And, if it stands, it'll get worse. That's how we've gotten to this point. Step by unopposed step. It took something like "Hounddog" to coalesce that long belated opposition.

Dear Aubrey:

You'll notice that Summer Bishil was 18 when she "porned" in a movie that portrayed her as a 13 year old child. Using barely legal girls this way is an old legal dodge for child pornographers. Now it's mainstream! Isn't it ironic that, at nearly the same time it was shooting, Dakota Fanning was already taking it to the next, disgusting level?

Me

Go to netflix sign up for a the free trial and get this movie sent to you. Watch it twice, once with sound so you understand the storyline, then again without the sound then focus entirely on the scenes with kids. You will see that Jimmy was almost aways alone when being filmed. The few scenes where he does talk it's mild in comparison to most other movies.

He didn't have to be exposed to anything. He didn't have to understand the storyline. Most scenes are him just staring at the camera sitting or standing. The story is achieved when the adults scenes are edited together. Watch the movie without sound so there is no voice over lays or sound effects. Then you will see that it's innocent. That is how it was filmed. Sitting on a sound stage with a small crew with no sound and the director giving him directions to look up, look left. ect.

There are only two scenes that are adult in nature. One where he knocks on the door and the mom's boyfriend answers nude with a big cowboy hat over his privates (the only semi-nude scene in the movie) and then he is sent into the bathroom and gets into the tub, the mom brings him a pillow then sits and talks. Behind her are pictures of nude women but you never see them in the room together. You see him, you see her, but never at the same time so he never saw the nude pics. They filmed him alone then added the pics when the mom was filmed.

The entire movie is this way. It was filmed specifically so the the kids were not subjected to anything. Don't give me that crap about editing out stuff. It didn't happen. His rape scene was very specific, he lays on a bed, someone reaches in from off camera and holds down his right hand, could have been his father for all we know, that's it. The rest of the scene is closeups on the man's face. You don't even realize it was rape scene until later during the hospital scene when the doctors are talking, all done with voice overs.

The other rape was filmed with Asia, a small detail I forgot, she plays the part but in regards to the storyline it was the boy that got raped.

The storline is hard to watch but the movie itself is rather tame compared to the average slasher kill em up blow em up Hollywood productions. It is not pornographic at all. No sexual scenes and only a slight hint of a semi nude scene.

Again this just shows your over reaction. I suppose you don't want kids in any movie that doesn't have bunny rabbits and fuzzy animals. That is never going to happen.

To attack a movie based solely on the storyline is stupid. In fact I think you might actaully enjoy the movie. It's powerful and heartbreaking. If people watched movies like these maybe they would think about the way their kids are being treated when they do drugs and party too much.

That's your challege. ACTUALLY watch the movie before making any more comments. Netflix can have it in your mailbox within two days. The trial is free for two weeks. Watch the movie then come back and honestly tell me it's child porn. Up to the challenge?

Niles Donothimno

It looks like she may have been stressed from all the Hounddog press when she moved on to her next role.

Acclaimed director Rowan Woods of Little Fish fame had difficulties with the girl star on the set of Winged Creatures.

Woods said his high profile cast was a pleasure to work with except for teenage starlet Dakota Fanning, who could be a diva on the set.

She initially refused to come out of her trailer on day one of shooting because her scene wasn't filmed first, and was "intensely jealous" of her young co-star Josh Hutcherson.

"Everyone was on their best behaviour on this film because they have got a `really serious Australian director who is known for his ensemble work'," Woods laughed.

"(Fanning) was the only one who was naughty."

Woods said while he thinks Fanning is a fine actor, on this film she didn't hit the mark.

"She is a gorgeous girl ... but she was the disaster," he said.

"There was something about her presence that wasn't ringing true.

"Most of our work was cutting her scenes and a lot of her scenes were cut."

Winged Creatures is due for a March 2009 release in the US with Australia to follow shortly after.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

I thought I made it clear that I had not researched this film in any depth. I was going by the synopsis I read and various unconfirmed accounts. If the film and its making was a mild (or should I say, as unharsh?) as you claim, then fine. I'm glad for that much, at least.

But it's hardly "innocent"! It was still an R-rated porn film, based on a tale of utter degeneracy and including children in its cast. It still depicted a child as the victim of a homosexual molestation. And don't give me that baloney about Jimmy not understanding the nature of what he was enacting. Child actors aren't stupid. They can read a script. They HAVE to. And they are constantly on the set with adults. In this case, Jimmy was on the set with a particularly depraved group of them.

That's enough, right there. The fact that Nexflix can "have it in your mailbox in two days" only illustrates the greater problem. Little Jimmy Jones down the block can do likewise. He might also have seen it during its brief run in theaters- just as he could "Hounddog" right now. And this Jimmy isn't stupid, either. But he is immature. He's a child. And, being one, his values and outlook on life are still developing.

Now do you see the problem?!

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Niles: I'd like to comment in depth on your posting, but I'm flat out of time! It was very revealing, though. I hadn't heard any stories out of the making of "Winged Creatures" before. (Just a few shots of Dakota on set and near the trailer you mentioned!) It does fit the pattern, though, of what I've heard about that kid from a number of other sources since "Hounddog" was made. Not the same child as before. Very, very sad.

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Niles:

I'd like to point out one thing. The stories about Dakota behaving "irratically" didn't start at Sundance 2007. They started filtering in from various sources right after "Hounddog" wrapped. They weren't too evident between that time and November due to the fact that the Fannings and all the "Hounddog" principals were virtually undercover. But the stories, while few, were notable because no one had ever said such things about that kid before. Her often mechanical performances during the "Charlotte's Web" TV promotions and, of course, that terrible press conference at Sundance, lent truth to the reports.

Still, I suppose the initial story on "Hounddog" that told of Dakota being a "regular little trouper" on set and gleefully waiting to doff her robe and perform semi-nude should have said something right there. At the time, though, having known what an outstanding kid she had once been, it was hard to give the story credence. Then again, I didn't appreciate at the time the level and extent to which even the best of children can be corrupted in Hollywood's insular environment. I should have. I was already aware of what could be done to grown men as prisoners of war. It's called "brainwashing". Logically, children are the most vulnerable of all to such procedures.

hey !!
have any of you here seen the movie
Bastard Out of Carolina
you know they say there was a pillow between
them in the car scene and that the little girl was not in the scene when they shot it
and they even did a behiend the scene look at the making of bastard out of carolina
will i have softwear i used to look at it a little better then they show i took the car scene put it in the 3d cub softwear added light pand down slowed it down went fram for fram pand in and to the side you can see the brown shaw they had on her lags and you can see her skrt she had on and he had on light tan pants befor they did the over the window shot of him dry humpping her there was a behiend the head shot it showed him pretnding to pull it out and pulling her underwear down then went to window shot will there was an edit in there in slowmo in the fram for fram you can see where she is setting on his lap and with the lighting you can see her and him but no dam pillow between them now they siad it was a very large one so y dident i see it i sceen his hand there and the other one raped around her middle and you can see him movien and for the little girl not being the back seat
you can hear her say im hurgry and she siad are they done yet some one siad suhh!! your to pretend your sleeping WTF!! lol i saw jenna in a interview and she siad she was not hart in the making of this film but if you take a look at what she done after this sick fucked up movie hummm.. i gess you can she did it all thanks to hollyfuckenwird.

DE DEDE!!
tipe in any movie you want..

http://tv-links.cc/movie/index.html

WOW this is Dakota Fannings myspace..
looks real.. is it??

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=384696166

Steven Mark Pilling

Lots of exploited FCSs (Former Child Stars) will say that they haven't been harmed by their experience(s). The trouble is, they have little frame of reference from their lives to understand what constitutes "normality". Child actors have always had that problem. The difference today, of course, is the perversity to which their exploitations now extend. Besides, it doesn't help their future career ambitions to come out and say that they've been through hell growing up with the memories and experiences they've been subjected to... despite what the record shows. Hollywood doesn't take kindly to such criticism! And their agents know it.

I rather doubt that Dakota has a website. She never had one before- even at the height of her popularity. Check it out, though, and let me know what you find. It's possible that, in hopes that she can lure back her fan base with "The Secret Life of Bees", she's going online. If so, just remember that every word will likely be scrutized by her handlers first. To them, she's a financial asset... not a growing kid.

O Realy ahaha..
yes that is hers Dee.. myspace page or its
somone very informed

and there was no pillow that i sceen would you like me to post it here the care scene wow!! jenna has put out some real sumt films after boc?? lol i dont want to get in to tuble with the web host i like these guys they do a grate job ..
i have photoshop pro/ and editeding softwear the best there is just like Hollywood has or better i have a grate audio softwear lol
i can set up tracks overlay slowit down pich tone in a raw storyline i can depict background noise thats how i hard what was siad to the little girl in the back seat in the car scene there where 7 takes lots of editing some deletes rember you can hide it but not delete it ahaha.. yes there is some bluppers in a reedit vices overlay played with the actor in the car scene.. to durty the tell here he had a mic in is ear ..

pretty baby.
what can i say she was nude in this one in some scenes but alone the tube scene was filmed apeart the man never saw here in the tube lol you can say it was a coverup but
from one side in edit befor finalizen you can see the differences between the two takes the long story short lots of tirks in this one ok some scenes with brooks she had on a see through cloth when wet it hugs the body making her look nude she was nude standing by the door scene..

as for hounddog ahaha.. wow did they cover up in this one lol not realy jk
dee had on a skin like body sute under her undarwear in all her takes the river scene with cody
you can see they went the mile with this one they even blird and coverd over peeps
between her lages her bloues fell off on the
rope scene you can see the skin sute covering her up she may have looked nude but she was not
every take she was coverd ..

http://www.hounddogmovie.com/


Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

From that, I take it that you have a copy of the film? Is it the currently issued version, the Sundance version or a pre-Sundance variety? Or are you analyzing one of the trailers?

I had no reason to disbelieve that a body sock of some sort was frequently employed. Of course, once again, that is legally a case of nudity when applied to children. Your contention that Dakota's body sock actually became transparent when wet is another facet, though. It wouldn't increase its illegality... but it would, perhaps, be a telling point if presented to a jury. Thanks for that tip.

You also mentioned your ability to discern background noises and words from footage, no matter how its been edited. That, too, is a point of interest. I'm aware of how expert computer analysts can retrieve such data. It has been alluded by some on-set witnesses (or proported ones) that Deborah Kampmeier's direction was frequently loud and obscene. If true, could such technology detect this and other behind-the-camera commentary?

As for MySpace... I've never accessed it. I have, however, dealt with "posers" on the internet before. I've found that, because of all the data I've collected on Dakota Fanning in the course of my "Hounddog" researches, I can usually detect and expose them quite readily. Maybe I need to check it out after all. I've learned that every source of information, however dubious, needs to be looked at if possible. I'll think that over.

Thanks for all the info. Best wishes to you.

to steve ..
i can tell you i droped all the tircks they used in the re master stel she had on this sute she was not nude she lost her bloues on the rope and she had on this tan like sute in the bed on the floor in the turck
in the shed in the tree the other kids did not show anything even the tub scene with the bubles she had on this sute cover over
peeps in underwear shots cant see anything
even if it was not blrd even added light
noughting and the audio dident here anything just the asist delete edit shoot brake cant say that and so on
tell me tre what im i looking for??
grate job by the way lov your radio shows
o there was lots of brakaways fadaways and so on try the tv link i put here

stave asked..

It has been alluded by some on-set
witnesses (or proported ones) that Deborah Kampmeier's direction was frequently loud and obscene. If true, could such technology detect this and other behind-the-camera commentary?

yes it scan be if the mic is on some times its just the camera they used two camera
in some scenes most of what i hard in edit was tic stuff and the storyline noughting out of bounds thank god..

lol tipo sorry..

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey: Thanks for the info. Once again, though; are you using actual footage for your evaluations or are you using one of the trailers? I'm assuming the latter. In the latest trailer, it shows a scene with Dakota Fanning and Piper Laurie in which Dakota's standing in a tub with suds covering her "strategically" front and back. Bruises are just above her buttocks... artificial, of course. Yet, she appears very much nude. Are you sure she was wearing a body sock in this scene? It's still illegal... but a scene of actual nudity carries weight. If you were to possess, say, a video assist, could present technology descern much from it as to background sound, physical condition of the actors, etc.?

Me

http://tv-links.cc/movie/index.html

Thanks for posting the link to an illegal download site. I'll be sure to contact the FBI and have this blogsite shut down and have all of you put in jail.

artificial, of course
is the kye word steve thats not a skin sute
she has on in that scene when standing in the tub with the bubles all over her and it looks as if they blrd over the back side
piples on left side but up top in a scan or pan with light there is somthing rapd around her chest she has somthing on her back side dont know what it is though looks like tape lol
me ..
on line tv is free
is it not ??

lol hoops..
Bruising / pinples ahahhaa.

steve ..
whts rong y is dakota fanning so important
to you.?
you know you could just ask her..

and in bee's she opend mouth kissed and stuff with an adult.. he is 19 or 20 shes just 14 but its ok in movies..lol man by the time she 18 ?? wow hate to think of it
ahah hey there doing this somtip of reality thing with britney now she back in the news with new video singing in the nude.

http://music.aol.com/top11?featuredVideo=2278648&featuredText=3&icid=100214839x1211099087x1200683745

Me

Steve,

What amazes me most is that you believe everything you read on these blog sites. This guy is full of it. This production was filmed with 35mm cameras onto 35mm stock. The film was physically edited frame by frame using a splicer to cut and edit frames together. This wasn't a digital production that could be edited together with some kind of photoshop program using a home computer.

There are no hidden scenes or ways to zoom into sub frames or what ever sci fi stuff this guy is making up. It doesn't work that way. The frames are cut from the film stock and each scene is spliced together frame by frame. There is no hidden audio, in fact there is no audio.

The audio is recorded on a seperate machine called a DAC. A digital Audio Recorder which is very sensitive and is aligned with the video using the digital encoding system.

The audio editor can add or remove almost any sound, word, voice, or director's instructions as each is captured on multiple tracks by different capture/mic devices. If for some reason the audio quality is not good enough or there are overlay sounds then that voice track can be dubbed later in a studio. Everything else is added later like foley effects and music track.

Once the film had been edited together and the unwanted frames have been REMOVED and the audio has been aligned and the foley effects have been added and the music has been edited then the finished version is assembled into a Digital Cinema Distribution Master (DCDM) which contains all of the digital material needed for a show. The images and sound are then compressed, encrypted, and packaged to form the Digital Cinema Package (DCP).

The DCP has been cleaned up and any unnecesary information completely removed to save hard drive space since the common method of distribution is by encrypted hard drives. Once the theatrical run is complete the hard drives are returned, wiped clean and used for another movie.

The same is true for dvds. To save on space since a typical single layer dvd has only 4.7 GB of space any unnecesary information, video, sound, effect is eliminated. On dual layer dvds there may be multiple versions of the same movie or additional audio tracks but there is no way possible to use some kind of computer program to hear what the director said when a scene is being filmed. That was eliminated when it was being physically edited.

This guy has been watching too many sci fi movies or smoking some bad shit.

------------------------

tv-links.cc is an ILLEGAL download site. I looked it over and there are no copies of Hounddog so don't even try to make the claim that you downloaded this movie online. If you are claiming to be able to view some kind of hidden scenes with hiden audio from the trailers then I know you are full of shit.

That site is setup overseas linking to illegal pirated movies, some still in theaters and boot legged movies using hand held cameras. Unauthorized distribution or electronic transportation of copyrighted motion pictures is a felony punishable up to seven years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine. If I were you I would be burning that hard drive of yours and switching to another internet provider before the FBI or the movie studios track you down.


thank you me..
for sumin that up for me

I looked it over and there are no copies of Hounddog so don't even try to make the claim that you downloaded this movie online.

NEVER SIAD I did.

got this link form someone in a gamen room
if it is illeagl i dident know.. and its not on my hard drive .

are these illegal hope not..
try this one.

http://www.stormforcepictures.com/

or this one

http://www.macvideotools.com/MacVideoTools/post/Aimersoft-Mac-DVD-Converter-Suite.aspx?gclid=CIur_6GuppYCFRlRagod7y1R5w


so whats the big deal over this movies hounddog anyway .

you guys realy think dakota fanning acted out these scenes

i mean come on ..

O Me.. is this illegal

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=384696166

im crying ahahahahahahha. DE DEDE!!

http://www.truveo.com/Hounddog-New-York-Premiere/id/3901587232

DAKOTA FANNING..
Dakota Fanning on Tonight Show
Talked about the movie the bee's
hummm. david ask her did she kiss a boy in bee's but dident ask how old he was dakota fanning is only 14 years old the guy shes kissing take after take is 19 or 20 years old an adult..

Dakota fanning
is looking to grown up
lastnight on the tonightshow she was wearing a purple shaw see through over a black miniskart and black highheels..
talking about driving a car and kissing adult take after take and they called him a boy ahaha. thats fucking hollywood for ya
in sweethome albama the boy was her age.
wtf happend.. if it was me kissing a 14yr old child id be in jail.. o but its actting its ok

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear "Me":

As usual, I'm just questioning, listening, evaluating and learning. I lack your obvious knowledge and expertise in filmmaking, which is why posts such as your last ones are so valuable. And I thank you!

Please don't get the idea that I accept every item or rumor that crosses my desk. Remember what I've said previously. The three essential components of investigation are collect, correlate and classify. From there you make your determinations, leaving them flexible as to future input. I learned this a long time ago (before the Internet Era!) and find it as fundamentally sound as ever.

I haven't visited the site that Aubrey mentions. Like you, I've learned to be wary of such sources. I don't automatically discount them, though. I don't do that with anything. But that's where the "correlation" factor comes in. There must be independent verification before data graduates from "Improbable" to "Possible"... much less to "Probable". Those are the three levels of classification.

I don't know Aubrey personally and, therefore, know nothing of his background. Obviously, he has some technical knowledge in this general field. He's a source and a willing one, so I listen to what he says and ask questions. I appreciate him as I do anyone who takes the time to come forward. Just as I do you.

Some of what you said about filmmaking and editing I've heard previously. However, as a rank amateur, I appreciate what is obviously your hands-on experience. Again; I'm still learning. I think, though, that some questions about raw footage and video assists that might still exist from the filming remain valid. This is what I was attempting to ascertain from Aubrey when I questioned him as to the sources of his evaluations.

Once again- I haven't accessed the site that Aubrey proferred and I NEVER make illegal downloads. I keep my activities clean and above board... which is a great deal more than can be said for the Industry these days. They'll find it a bit hard to take me down from that angle! But they're welcome to try. As for the FBI... they're the good guys. I look to them as an ally in a mutual endeavor.

Steven Mark Pilling (My real name, by the way.)

Steven Mark Pilling

Dear Aubrey:

I assume you just read over my post to "Me". Please understand from that that I do appreciate your input and concerns. BTW: Merely accessing a site is not going to get you thrown in jail... as I'm sure you're aware. However, if the sites you mention DO contain illegally obtained images, you ought to report it. I don't uphold the "right" of depraved filmmakers to do the things they do (with children in particular) and believe that great numbers of them belong in jail on any number of charges... were the laws of this nation properly enforced. However, on general principle, I DO support the right of private property. It is an essential component of any free society.

That said; I'll address your question about Dakota Fanning. As I've often said, the hearts and souls of all children are equally precious. Her's no more or less than any of them. What makes her of particular note is the fact that, as the once most popular child actress in the country, it was her starpower (and spirit) that was corrupted into a weapon against all those other children that loved her. By despoiling all she once was for the benefit of sick audiences (and for the purposes of- again- their own profit and notoriety) the filmmakers and their allies likewise despoiled her young generation through her. They had to know that, by doing so, they'd also transgress on the developing minds and outlooks of those children through Dakota's cinematic travails and, likewise, encourage the sicker members of their potential audience to take action against them. They knew... and didn't care. That, alone, was criminality of the worst order.

That is what makes Dakota's story a key component in the greater issue. She's not, by any means, the first child star to be ruthlessly exploited. That is a story as old as Hollywood. It was the EXTENT of that depredation in regard to "Hounddog" and what it means, not only for her and for other child actors- now and in the future- but for children everywhere. The popular culture has redefined childhood from the crown of creation down into the abyss of "useful, sexualized tools of the trade". And now it's attempting to justify overt child pornography... with Dakota Fanning's image as its spearhead.

I don't want anything (else) bad to happen to Dakota... anymore than I do for any other kid. I wish her every happiness and success. I just hope for it to happen legitimately and in proper decency. It's important, not only for her, but for her generational peers. But the history of cinematic child abuse is a grim one and does not bode well for her future. Once branded with the iron of "easy virtue", ugly roles have a habit of frequently re-occurring. And Dakota was branded at the age of 12! Therefore, I worry for her personally and for all the other child actors who must now labor under her new and tragic legacy.

P.S. Did she actually appear on Letterman's show looking like that?! I refer you to my last paragraph.

Me

"was dakota fanning is only 14 years old the guy shes kissing take after take is 19 or 20 years old an adult.."

NO! Dakota NEVER kissed Christoph Sanders, there was no contact other than him pushing her down. The rest was just closeups of her face, arm, leg.

http://www.stormforcepictures.com/

Nothing illegal about that one. It's actaully a pretty good site.

http://www.macvideotools.com

Nothing illegal about the site or the program. But it is illegal to use a program like that or dvdshrink or dvddecypher to remove the encryption and make copies of dvds. It's legal to make a copy of a dvd that is not encrypted if you own a copy of the movie. Just like audio cds, if you own the cd you can make a copy for your own personal use but if you sell your original you must destroy your copy.

It's illegal to remove the encryption not to make a copy. It's illegal to download any copyrighted movie that isn't public domain. Most of the sites like that are setup in China or Russia where they are safe from US prosecution but if you download it then you can be prosecuted.

Video Assist, now that's a touchy subject because the video and audio is stored on a hard drive. It could have been possible for someone to copy the hard drive or even burn it to a dvd disk. Most likely there were some dvds floating around since that's become the common method of viewing dailies. I doubt any such disk are still around. Not because they had anything to hide but because generally the production gets these disk back or they get destroyed right away. I know the hard drives get cleaned right away and used for the next weeks filming or another movie. Unless someone secretly made copies or saved a dvd from the dailies there is no chance any video assist video is still around. Unlikely any was still around more than a week after production was completed.

to stave..
yes dakota fanning was dressed like that
and to ME.. it was not Christoph Sanders
i was talking about. that was hounddog. in the movie bee's the young black man was who i was talken about he's 20 yrars old and dakota fanning went on to the tonightshow to promote her movie bee's
she siad she had to kiiss him take after take she's just 14 yrs old. lol and talken about driven all redy.

now the links i put there is to let you know
i have some background in editing film
i biuld computers too i deal with kids everyday from all over the world
im an ea admin.. for online game servers
i mod the games maps websits for the kids to play on everyday.
html source coding is what i call it dna is what fop calls it. its in evry thing you do
by source coding through html reediting codes
and building it back up in this sorftwear called 3d cub everything you delete can be recalled this is a footprint in what they call an rfa. keep in mined the master is the 3d cub so if they filmd somthing go to editing dident like it and delete it.its stell there stell a footprint in it. its stell there. but cant be sceen becouse of source coding
with a hightec softwear it can be recalled
all i need is the master cd and everything thats put into it that had ben deleted can and will be recalled. thats y they have to
put encryption on them
now you have to know what video interfaces. drivers they used beit va.wma.divx wim.indeo. and so on there are
hundreds of these video drivers in one pack / audio drivers. by loading all these drivers in befor you load the master that will stop the gessing you get the right driver right off the bat these are caled
driver packs.. and there are two wasys to restore a computer you have a restore to a date in time and a factory restore in factory restore all is lost beit temp.ie/e7
whear restor to date and time all is stell there and hidden a footprint. ME.. i like you and steve along with ted and tre..
and all who come here to vent.
NOW I CAN SAY THIS DAKOTA FANNING WAS NOT MISS TREAED IN THE MAKING OF HOUNDOG SHE WAS NOT NUDE.. lol but she did kiss a 20yr old adult in bee's take after take lets just hope she dosent come to do what briney or boorks jenna jody or any of the others did and now are doing.

here have a look ..

http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi2021589017/

ahaha. Sorry guys i need to start proofreading my post.. tipo city.WEEE
anyway WOW this is some cool softwear
google earth.. pro and i found more
advanced editing software with video / audio
pack drivers.. lol with a q4
3.5 64 bit /2to3gigs.DDR2Ram and a good video card psi with a gig of RAM and 500 gig hard drive at 24'000 rpms straped rad to 250s a side;
and a dual dvd burner google earth works grate and OMG good graphic

this photos they have on this website i found. has the model cm they used to shoot the sceens of hounddog with i could geve you the model and make of it is this the cam they used in all the scenes this one mounted on a cart and its hard wierd to a laptop and i can see dakota fanning standing next to the
camera guy holding a albino boa and shes standing next to Deborah Kampmeier i can even bring up the license numbers of the cars and turcks there around the scene and i can see all the pepole there too. whos the women on the laptop next to the camera guy must be the video assist if they sent this through yahoo or msn or used a ptp softwear humm.. ?? lets fined out

The comments to this entry are closed.