|
|
Post by Mel on Feb 2, 2014 13:57:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Feb 2, 2014 15:18:51 GMT -5
I was skeptical when I first read it, because there are too many internet hoaxes of celebrity deaths. But this seems to be true. I wonder how much of Hunger Games he had finished shooting.
It's always drugs, isn't it?
-TK
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 2, 2014 19:58:09 GMT -5
I was skeptical when I first read it, because there are too many internet hoaxes of celebrity deaths. But this seems to be true. I wonder how much of Hunger Games he had finished shooting. It's always drugs, isn't it? -TK
What a waste. What a goddamn waste. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 3, 2014 14:29:36 GMT -5
That's a good question. I believe his role becomes more important in the final 2 movies, so if it were me, I'd recast. They recast Dumbledore, they can recast this.
It is a waste, though the sympathy level runs dry when drugs are involved. He did it to himself. That's not a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Feb 3, 2014 17:44:06 GMT -5
That's a good question. I believe his role becomes more important in the final 2 movies, so if it were me, I'd recast. They recast Dumbledore, they can recast this. It is a waste, though the sympathy level runs dry when drugs are involved. He did it to himself. That's not a tragedy. The difference with Dumbledore is that he died between movies. Here, Hoffman has already shot a lot for the next movie. I'm sure it puts the filmmakers in a tough spot because recasting would mean reshoots and they may also not want to slight his memory by erasing his final role. This reminds me of when Heath Ledger died leaving Terry Gilliam's movie unfinished. I read that Hoffman still had another seven days of shooting on Hunger Games, but the studio is going ahead with their release dates. Probably they'll give some of his dialogue to other characters, and maybe use CGI and body doubles if necessary. I think it's a guarantee that there will be a dedication to Hoffman on the film though. Way too many drug-related fatalities these days. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Feb 3, 2014 19:15:27 GMT -5
You said it. A terrible, terrible, goddamn waste.
His movie characters were always fascinating. Did anyone see him in a NYC play?
I read that Hoffman had recently finished 10 days of rehab. It could be that he tried his old dosage, and it was too strong for his newly clean system. My brother had that trouble with on-again off-again freebasing and rehab. My brother got lucky. He finally got clean and stayed clean.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 4, 2014 16:55:44 GMT -5
That's a good question. I believe his role becomes more important in the final 2 movies, so if it were me, I'd recast. They recast Dumbledore, they can recast this. It is a waste, though the sympathy level runs dry when drugs are involved. He did it to himself. That's not a tragedy.
As for what they should do as far as Hoffman's character in "The Hunger Games" goes ...it's hard to say. I don't read the books, so I don't know how important that character is supposed to be in the final two books, but movies based on novels have deviated from the original source material many times, and it seems to me that for these movies, being that Hoffman is now gone, they should kill off his character and bring in a new one for the films that follow to take his place. I don't think the role should be recast in this case. For one thing, President Snow has reason to want the character dead being that he double crossed him, so kill him off and then bring in a new character to take his place.
They were able recast in the Harry Potter films for Richard Harris being that with the hat and the beard, it was pretty easy to put in a substitute to take on that role. This is a different story though, and I also think it would be perhaps a tad disrespectful to Hoffman's memory to bring in another actor to take on that role. I know people like you probably wouldn't agree with that because he did it to himself, but I'm also looking at it from a professional standpoint as well. Acting was Hoffman's craft, and he was very good at it. He appeared in one movie, will probably be in the next one as well to the extent they can use what he's already filmed for the picture, so that role in those films was his therefore at this point in my opinion. Honor that by not trying to simply fill his shoes with another actor for the last movie, or however many they end up making to round out this particular series of films. That's my view. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 5, 2014 8:29:31 GMT -5
It's not a sickness. It's a weakness. Most people who use drugs choose to use them.
What I have seen are people who are not drug users die in accidents, or of cancer, or other diseases. Or even good people who die of old age. Hoffman wasn't sick. No one put a gun to his head and told him to take heroin.
Unlike many, he had the means to go to rehab and clean himself up, and to make sure he did not overdose. But lo and behold, he did. This is not a tragic loss. This is Darwinism doing its thing.
Plenty of examples of tragic losses are out there in Hollywood or otherwise. This is not one of them.
Hunger Games have actually followed the novels very well.
It was a lot more disrespectful of Hoffman to kill himself with heroin than it would be of the movie to recast a role that could be recast. It was disrespectful for Hoffman to kill himself while he had a young kid.
They don't owe Hoffman anything. They only have the responsibility to make as good of a movie as possible, and if recasting is necessary, then they should do it.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 6, 2014 1:27:01 GMT -5
It's not a sickness. It's a weakness. Most people who use drugs choose to use them. What I have seen are people who are not drug users die in accidents, or of cancer, or other diseases. Or even good people who die of old age. Hoffman wasn't sick. No one put a gun to his head and told him to take heroin. Unlike many, he had the means to go to rehab and clean himself up, and to make sure he did not overdose. But lo and behold, he did. This is not a tragic loss. This is Darwinism doing its thing. Hoffman was in rehab last year. He relapsed. Prior to last year he had been clean for two decades. It just goes to show that once you've had a monkey on your back, it doesn't necessarily leave you alone for good. In fact, it's when you let your guard down for just a moment finally, thinking you're safe because so much time has passed and that obviously you've conquered your addiction that it might well catch you by surprise and get the better of you, as it did with Hoffman. He fell back into old habits, and all that was required for him to have that happen was doing it one time again to start with. That's why it's an insidious disease. And this stuff about *Darwinism doing its thing* ...all I can say is that you're fortunate that it's never touched your family evidently, or anyone close to you, such as a best friend. Otherwise I don't think you would be chalking up the demise of someone so close to you, and the struggle you had witnessed them going through for a long time prior to that, as *Darwinism just doing its thing*. That's a level of coldhearted callousness I'm glad I can't identify with frankly. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 6, 2014 7:25:40 GMT -5
Well, he relapsed. Again, that's on him. I actually know someone who knew him, and clean for two decades is a stretch. Let your guard down? He had like 70 bags of heroin or something ridiculous like that. When you compare a guy like Hoffman to someone who loses their life to cancer, or an accident, a self inflicted death doesn't compare. One is tragic. The other is not. The only reason this is even news is that he was a celebrity. People OD all the time, and you don't see massive manhunts to find the dealer. Maybe if you did, there would be fewer deaths like this. No one put a gun to his head and forced him to shoot up on heroin. As for Hunger Games, they are going to digitally insert him in. nypost.com/2014/02/06/hoffman-to-be-digitally-inserted-into-new-hunger-games/ |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 6, 2014 15:50:53 GMT -5
Well, he relapsed. Again, that's on him. I actually know someone who knew him, and clean for two decades is a stretch. Let your guard down? He had like 70 bags of heroin or something ridiculous like that.
And of course it was stupid on his part. I never said it wasn't.
But before he reached that point, it all started with one slip, which was my point.When you compare a guy like Hoffman to someone who loses their life to cancer, or an accident, a self inflicted death doesn't compare. One is tragic. The other is not. As for Hunger Games, they are going to digitally insert him in. |
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Feb 6, 2014 16:51:16 GMT -5
As for Hunger Games, they are going to digitally insert him in. They're shooting the last two (which is the final book split over two movies) together. Apparently he had really only one scene left to shoot over about 7 days. I don't know whether that effects the first movie or the one after, but it looks like they'll be okay with altering the script and digitally insterting when necessary. I'm kinda with Marc on there being different levels of tragedy. This is still a shock, sad for the family, and a loss of a great actor. But when you're engaging in destructive behavior that kills you, that's a little different from a completely out of the blue accident. Not that it's not awful, but it's not the same as when Paul Walker died. I'm not saying addiction isn't prevalent or awful; it is. And it's awful that he relapsed. It's a shame. Perhaps the relapse itself is more tragic than the resultant death. I guess I just think there are degrees, and sometimes all the "tragedy" language makes it sound like just an unfortunate accident, which glosses over his part in it. It's like bullying: if some bullies beat a kid to death, that's awful. But if the kid is bullied and goes home and kills himself, that's on the kid. You can't say the bullies killed him. And I say this as someone who wrestles with suicidal thought every couple weeks. Maybe it's simply that some of us don't like "tragedy" implying that the dead are always victims. Regardless of semantics though, we lost another good one and that's a shame. The bigger tragedy is how many other addicts will see this happen yet again, and not get help for themselves. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 6, 2014 18:01:55 GMT -5
I'm kinda with Marc on there being different levels of tragedy. This is still a shock, sad for the family, and a loss of a great actor. But when you're engaging in destructive behavior that kills you, that's a little different from a completely out of the blue accident. Not that it's not awful, but it's not the same as when Paul Walker died.
Walker was in a car that his friend was driving at around one hundred miles an hour or more when that accident occurred, so arguably, it was not somehow any less destructive than what Hoffman did that did him in. I'm not saying addiction isn't prevalent or awful; it is. And it's awful that he relapsed. It's a shame. Perhaps the relapse itself is more tragic than the resultant death. I guess I just think there are degrees, and sometimes all the "tragedy" language makes it sound like just an unfortunate accident, which glosses over his part in it. It's like bullying: if some bullies beat a kid to death, that's awful. But if the kid is bullied and goes home and kills himself, that's on the kid. You can't say the bullies killed him. And I say this as someone who wrestles with suicidal thought every couple weeks. Maybe it's simply that some of us don't like "tragedy" implying that the dead are always victims.
Okay, so one day, God forbid, you decide to go and do yourself in. You wouldn't want that viewed as tragic--at least as tragic as someone who ends up dying in a speed-racing accident?
In a way, I can't even believe what we're discussing here --that the death of a man, who showed himself to be a fine actor, is somehow not tragic because he did himself in with drugs.
And let's not forget that the reason I began taking issue with Marc on this was because of his Darwinian evolution claim, with the species just weeding out the bad apples that deserve to die anyway supposedly. The lack of compassion with respect to that statement alone simply nauseates me frankly. It also tells me he's been fortunate enough to have not known anyone who had the misfortunate of being addicted to drugs.
Hoffman never hurt anyone as far as I know, except himself. It's not like he was a freebaser who went out and raped someone or killed someone for kicks. He got hooked on a drug that's known to be more addictive than nicotine, and he lost that fight. To say that he deserved it because he was weak is pretty sickening to me.
The man wasn't well obviously, or he wouldn't have been doing what he was doing.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrekBeatTK on Feb 6, 2014 20:49:45 GMT -5
Walker was in a car that his friend was driving at around one hundred miles an hour or more when that accident occurred, so arguably, it was not somehow any less destructive than what Hoffman did that did him in. Okay, good point. But even then, he wasn't driving. I would think differently of it if he were behind the wheel. Maybe we use Michael Jackson instead, who also died of an overdose because his doctor was pumping him full of drugs. Okay, so one day, God forbid, you decide to go and do yourself in. You wouldn't want that viewed as tragic--at least as tragic as someone who ends up dying in a speed-racing accident? No, I don't want that viewed as "tragic". That to me would be a further slap in the face. Then it's like "oh, they only give a crap because now I'm dead. Where was that when I was alive?" And let's not forget that the reason I began taking issue with Marc on this was because of his Darwinian evolution claim, with the species just weeding out the bad apples that deserve to die anyway supposedly. I'll agree with you there. That's one step beyond for me too. -TK |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 7, 2014 7:33:18 GMT -5
No, it's not more tragic when a guy kills himself. It's far less tragic. Life is a gift, and when someone dies in an accident, or by disease, or any reason through no fault of their own, THAT is tragic.
Throwing that gift away because you are a weak heroin addict is not tragic at all. It's a WASTE, but not tragic.
The next two Hunger Games movies are based on one book, like what they did to Harry Potter. This way they can drag it out a little more, which in Hunger Games' case, isn't great, since that was the worst book of the three. I believe I read that Hoffman had filmed scenes from the last movie, so maybe they were doing things back to back. It sounds like they filmed a LOT.
Paul Walker's death was also quite stupid. If you are putting degrees of tragedy on a scale, I would consider Walker's death worse than Hoffman's. Walker wasn't driving, but at the same time, he was dumb enough to be involved in a car speeding along like that.
I wouldn't put Michael Jackson in any special category either. His death was also stupid. The guy was mentally messed up in the head, and his actions were not those of a normal human being.
If you want an example of a famous person dying in a tragedy, think Owen Hart, Thurman Munson, Buddy Holly/Richie Valens. Plane crashes, on the job accidents.
Or someone like Patrick Swayze or Michael Landon, who died of cancer at young ages.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 7, 2014 13:16:23 GMT -5
No, I don't want that viewed as "tragic". That to me would be a further slap in the face. Then it's like "oh, they only give a crap because now I'm dead. Where was that when I was alive?" -TK Are people supposed to mourn BEFORE a friend or family member passes on? I always thought it was the other way around. You need to speak to someone. Find a counselor. Seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 7, 2014 13:23:18 GMT -5
No, it's not more tragic when a guy kills himself. It's far less tragic. Life is a gift, and when someone dies in an accident, or by disease, or any reason through no fault of their own, THAT is tragic. Throwing that gift away because you are a weak heroin addict is not tragic at all. It's a WASTE, but not tragic. You're assuming that an addict can reason and see the world as you do. They do not. They become consumed by their addiction. Clearly you don't view addiction as a disease, which is what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by CRAMBAM on Feb 7, 2014 19:46:57 GMT -5
While this isn't 100 percent true, most people are not born addicts. No one puts a gun to their head and says, here's some heroin.
I absolutely do not view addiction as a disease. It's a weakness.
|
|
|
|
Post by StarFuryG7 on Feb 7, 2014 21:12:44 GMT -5
While this isn't 100 percent true, most people are not born addicts. No one puts a gun to their head and says, here's some heroin. I absolutely do not view addiction as a disease. It's a weakness.
"Addiction is a chronic, often relapsing brain disease that causes compulsive drug seeking and use, despite harmful consequences to the addicted individual and to those around him or her. Alt-hough the initial decision to take drugs is voluntary for most people, the brain changes that occur over time challenge an addicted person’s self control and hamper his or her ability to resist intense impulses to take drugs."www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/understanding-drug-abuse-addictionAddiction is due 50 percent to genetic predisposition and 50 percent to poor coping skills. This has been confirmed by numerous studies. One study looked at 861 identical twin pairs and 653 fraternal (non-identical) twin pairs. When one identical twin was addicted to alcohol, the other twin had a high probability of being addicted. But when one non-identical twin was addicted to alcohol, the other twin did not necessarily have an addiction. Based on the differences between the identical and non-identical twins, the study showed 50-60% of addiction is due to genetic factors.(1) Those numbers have been confirmed by other studies.(2)www.addictionsandrecovery.org/is-addiction-a-disease.htmBut hey, think what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Mel on Feb 9, 2014 10:29:46 GMT -5
I hear you!
I'm reminded of a line from The Big Chill:
They throw a great party for you on the one day they know you can't come.
That's how I feel about it. I'm well over 60, but I've never had a great party. No doubt there will be one when I'm dead and gone!
|
|
