RandomCat

Split was only great as far as McAvoy's performance. The rest was okay, and passable as a horror movie.

As someone who has never seen real snow, I'd have never know what a realistic avalanche looks like, so won't bother me.

Reading through, there is a clarification, that the thread started as a joke that turned...darker. https://twitter.com/jaedenized/status/918319312812814336

Not sure if I could take it if some of these people were predators too, I'm still reeling from Spacey.

I would be there, in a heart beat. But we'd need a good McGinnis, and I'm not sure who'd I'd cast.

I'd pay good money to see Christopher Plummer as Batman.

Ouch...At least that doesn't have Chuck Norris in a buddy cop movie with a dog.

Released 9 days after the Oklahoma City Bombings. Movie is about White supremacist groups setting off a bunch of bombs to kill people, and Chuck Norris and the dog try to save the day. Also takes place on the same day, or about it, as Oklahoma bombing (irc).

My life, It's shattered.

*waits for dirt on Christopher Plummer now*

Which would be the case if it was about Spacey molesting young men. Now, it's about the movie ditching Spacey and replacing him, why it's Good publicity, and not bad publicity. (Also, it's Sony, not Universal)

Sorry, but in all reporting has been it was Scott's decision. You can keep trying to blame the studio, but it was Scott taking advantage of the public opinion to get who he wanted in place. Everything else, well you've got your own opinions on the matter, I have mine. I don't agree with yours, and you aren't going to change mine. So I'm leaving that there.

I think it's a shrewd decision by Scott who saw an opening to get the actor he wanted in the role, into the role. I think it falls more on the creative than business side of that line. I also wouldn't call this pitchfork justice.

Besides the fact that proving guilt has nothing to do with whether a business retains a person, but the scandal is enough that it can bring enough of a negative image to the proceedings to hurt their continued profits. Besides the fact that is the exact opposite way slander works, Slander is only when the statement is proved false, not until it is proved true. But as a business perspective, Sony had no choice in the matter. Scott did this, on his own. and now the film has turned negative buzz into positive buzz building up into award season. And will probably make more money now then it would have a week ago, or even before the accusations against Spacey.

Depends on the contract, but I doubt he will now.

Certainly put this on my to watch list. To support Scott, and as a way of supporting the punishment of abusers, since the odds of any criminal action against Spacey seem...not good.

Magnificent Fox/Magnificent Inferno, depending on the administrative cock-up.

And like most things. It's best to just ignore and walk away.

Disney just doesn't want DISNEY in front of an R movie. That doesn't mean Disney doesn't like R rated movies.

I'm envious of those who have the time off.

I'd just like Hugh Jackman to show up in the MCU. That's all I want. And maybe X-23.

I really want to watch this movie again, every time I think about it, I want to see it. Fucked up world we live in that this failed. It shows I got lost in the credits thinking of this movie, but her character name is spelled Joi? Wow...

Me thinks naming your Christmas movie after the evil version of Bedford Falls is not the best idea.

I mean, maybe? Everyone was talking about it for Rogue One because ILM wanted it out there. Of course, Ant-Man did it just as good years ago. Edit: Plus, considering it was all of a handful of shots, and didn't even have to do anything like portray emotion, it isn't THAT exciting.