|
Monster
Jul 15, 2009 1:10:10 GMT -5
Post by Dabbit on Jul 15, 2009 1:10:10 GMT -5
Whilst reading my latest book about serial killers I was somewhat disturbed to find out that Aileen Wuornos (the serial killer) actually got paid for the 'rights' to making the film? Am I losing the plot, or just living on a different planet!?!?!?
There is NO WAY this woman or any other criminal should EVER be paid for rights to make a film. They have profited enough from their crimes already i m o
P.S The film in question is 'monster' starring Charlize Theron and Wuornos is reported to have got some $16,000 + for the rights, which included giving the film makers details of her crimes and letters she had saved!
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 15, 2009 14:40:10 GMT -5
Post by Mark on Jul 15, 2009 14:40:10 GMT -5
Well, look at it this way, Dabbit, she didn't get to spend much of it. She was executed via lethal injection in 2002.
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 16, 2009 1:14:33 GMT -5
Post by Dabbit on Jul 16, 2009 1:14:33 GMT -5
I know she was Mark (from my understanding she actually demanded to be executed). But the fact remains she shouldn't have got rewarded for her crime...
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 16, 2009 5:16:47 GMT -5
Post by Maria on Jul 16, 2009 5:16:47 GMT -5
I agree with you Dabbit. I thought that in the US criminals were not allowed to profit from their crimes. By that I mean selling stories etc. Guess I was wrong.
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 16, 2009 7:30:12 GMT -5
Post by Mark on Jul 16, 2009 7:30:12 GMT -5
That's quite true. However, it must be noted that both she and even the investigators signed off on film rights after she was arrested, but before she was convicted. Before she was convicted, she was 'presumed' innocent, and thus had the right to enter such a contract. After conviction, I don't think it would be allowed.
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 17, 2009 1:16:22 GMT -5
Post by Dabbit on Jul 17, 2009 1:16:22 GMT -5
I think it is the same here Maria - no one should profit from their crimes - though I think (and I could be wrong) this is a fairly new law.
Mark I still think it was wrong - whether she was presumed innocent or not. In my opinion they should have waited until her conviction/freedom before even thinking about it.
|
|
|
Monster
Jul 17, 2009 7:54:21 GMT -5
Post by Mark on Jul 17, 2009 7:54:21 GMT -5
That could be true, Dabbit. But it's a moot point. Highly unethical perhaps, but not illegal. All our rights would be jeopardized if being accused of something meant you lost those rights until proven innocent. I agree that bad people should not profit from their misdeeds, but it is a slippery slope indeed when we start down that road. Having said that, I will further say that I blame the money hungry film producers. I think it is unethical for them to pay someone who 'might' be guilty of a heinous crime until they were proven innocent. In my mind, that puts them in the same bed, metaphorically speaking, as the accused. Now, stepping down from my proverbial 'soapbox', I'll retire to a neutral corner...LOL
|
|