WittyUsername
-
Posts
9,987 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by WittyUsername
-
-
3 hours ago, OncomingStorm93 said:
I can't fathom how this will open to 50m+.
This film looks bad. Any of the three trailers released so far could make a case for being the worst individual trailer of the year. Aside from Tom Hardy, who is always entertaining, I've been disgusted by the horrible dialogue, generic visual style, the dialogue again, boilerplate story, and that 'turd in the wind' level dialogue.
Venom isn't a character with mainstream appeal. It's hilarious Sony thought that ending the first teaser with Venom's cartoonish face would resonate with the masses. Is Sony banking on Spider-Man comic book fans to turn a profit here?
If this film was halfway decent, it could perform well, but this looks like a train-wreck.
Last I recall, he was part of the reason that SM3 had a record breaking opening.
-
3
-
-
30 minutes ago, AndyK said:
I've always been confused why black people refer to themselves using the n-word all the time on youtube vids.
Alright, I know I’m the one who brought up Mike Cernovich’s claim that Silverman used the n-word, but we don’t have to turn this into a debate regarding the use of the n-word. My only point was that it’s crazy how the James Gunn situation has given these idiots the incentive to try and get a bunch of other people fired, especially the people who are known for working with Disney.
-
1
-
-
I guess I’ll point out right now that Mike Cernovich (the guy who helped get James Gunn fired) is now claiming that there’s a tape of Sarah Silverman using the n-word. Mind you, there actually is a video of Mike Cernovich using the n-word, but it seems safe to say that these guys have been going after a lot of Disney stars lately. For whatever reason, Disney has become a sworn enemy of the alt-right, which is ironic.
-
2 hours ago, John Marston said:
Other sites reported it as well
Websites will report anything for clicks. As far as I can tell, the idiots at Breitbart were the ones who first broke the news of this “story”, which would suggest that this is just a desperate attempt by the alt-right idiots to make sure that James Gunn never works again.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Spidey Freak said:
It's not like Hollywood directors who attend pedophile themed parties dressed like priests are actual pedo- OH FUCKING WAIT
Again, Bryan Singer had parties with actual underage boys. The costume party Gunn went to was all adults.
-
1 minute ago, Deja23 said:
It’s been a couple of weeks since Disney fired Gunn. I’d think if he does have skeletons in his closet, besides the offensive tweets and costume party, they’d be out by now. He has publicly acknowledged that he was in a school run by a pedophile and has history of abuse, which I think partly explains his preoccupation with abuse in his work and tweets.
I think if he has actually committed actions that would make him a pedophile, which is what it seems some are claiming in this thread despite having no proof, his victims would’ve come forward once it became clear he didn’t have the support of a major corporation like Disney. That’s what’s happened with Singer and Spacey. If Gunn is like them, we should be hearing similar stories about him, but there have been none as far as I’ve seen.
I’ve mentioned this already, but the party with Gunn isn’t even comparable to the parties that Singer has been infamous for hosting. Singer has had actual underage boys with no supervision at his parties. This really just seems like the alt-right being desperate to try and ruin Gunn’s career even further.
-
1
-
-
Just now, Blaze Heatnix said:
Child predators can go to parties without kids. That doesn't mean they aren't child predators.
Pedophiles don't have to be pedophiles all the time, they're still pedophiles regardless.
The real issue is the pedophilia-themed party. You have a guy that jokes about pedophilia, the same guy also goes to pedophia-themed parties. I wouldn't take it for granted.
I think this guy has issues and maybe he needs help. I'm serious.
You’re making it sound like he attended a NAMBLA meeting or something. It was a costume party. If anything, the party was making fun of pedophiles. Seriously, this is reaching. You are reaching.
-
8 minutes ago, DMan7 said:
Trump is just one example, like I've said before there are plenty other examples where people have said similar things Gunn has said and were chastised heavily for it, yet these same people are in support of it now that the shoe is on the other foot and are in defense of someone who they support. This situation is an agenda driven double standard which began with the whole Roseanne situation and the people who were berating her for what she said are now coming to the defense of Gunn which further exposes the double standard. People who support either one of them will also always find an excuse as to why the situation for the one they support is different than the situation with the ones they don't support when in reality they are both wrong.
It’s not really a double standard if people genuinely explain their reasoning behind supporting one but not the other.
-
7 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
Child predators are real people who do real things. They can dress as normal/ordinary people. The issue is about a pedophilia-themed party. James Gunn doesn't need to be dressed as a "real life child predator" in order to be considered a child predator. There are many pedophiles that we don't even know they're pedophiles.
Didn't Gunn even have a pedophile as a friend? He was arrested.
Sure, that doesn't prove anything and that doesn't mean Gunn is a pedophile. However, it's still weird.
Were there children at that costume party? If not, using that party as proof of anything is ridiculous.
-
5 minutes ago, AJG said:
And here’s Bryan Singer doing the same thing as Gunn.
THIS SHIT IS WEIRD!!!
Bryan Singer had parties with actual underage boys. As far as we know, all the people who went to the party Gunn was at were adults.
-
Just now, Blaze Heatnix said:
Yeah, but he's still a fictional character. Pedophiles aren't fictional characters, they're real people who do real things.
Unless James Gunn was dressed as a real life child predator, I’m not really seeing your point.
-
1 minute ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
I think your analogy doesn't work, because Jason Voorhees is a fictional character while pedophilia is a very real issue ( even if it's just a party or whatever that event was ).
I think AJG is right and it's possible that Disney knows something we don't, about Gunn.
Murder is also a real issue, and that’s what Jason Voorhees does.
-
Just now, DMan7 said:
Again it's either all of it is bad or none of it is. It shouldn't matter the position of the person in society, they should be held equally responsible as anyone else otherwise you will continue to create a culture and environment where double standards exists on both sides.
Different standards should apply to someone who’s running for president versus someone who makes movies. I don’t understand your point.
Besodes, I mentioned in the past that I was split on Gunn’s firing, but comparing the scrutiny he gets to the scrutiny that Donald Trump gets is ridiculous, especially given that Trump actually became President of the United States after some of his old comments resurfaced.
-
9 minutes ago, AJG said:
That makes no difference.
That is a weird fucking thing to do.
Again, is it any weirder than people who dress up like Jason Voorhees for Halloween? It was a costume party where everyone was an adult.
-
15 minutes ago, DMan7 said:
That still is wrong though whether it is in the past or not. And again it brings up my point yet again because the #metoo movement is also bringing up stuff in the past which happened 20+ years ago and people are being persecuted for it as if it happened in present day. Not to mention the issues with Trump which happened in the past "p grabber", paying off prostitutes etc.. which also happened in the past yet he is also being persecuted today for it as well. I don't really want to bring all this politics into this discussion but I'm just using this to highlight the gross hypocrisy and double standards which exists amongst those people who try to take the moral high ground on these issues then immediately do a 360 once it's someone they support. It's all agenda driven IMO and it's either all of it is bad or none of it is. There is no selective bias which should take place here which seems to be happening alot in the USA.
Trump has been accused of more than just saying “grab her by the pussy”. Also, the paying off porn stars thing is an action that potentially involved illegal campaign payments. That’s why those are receiving so much media traction.
Anyway, James Gunn isn’t running for president, so that’s not a good comparison anyway.
-
15 minutes ago, AJG said:
The tweets were stupid jokes.
Going to a pedophillia themed party is just blizarre. How would you even explain that to people?
It was an adult costume party. I’d assume you would explain that the same way you would explain dressing up as Jason Voorhees. Does dressing up as Jason Voorhees make you a serial killer?
-
1 minute ago, DMan7 said:
This had me thinking, when does one draw the line with what bad stuff is being said online though? Is saying racial stuff online less worse than saying pedophilia stuff online or vice versa. How do we quantify out of the various foul categories what is acceptable to be said and what is not though? From what I'm seeing online is that people who are lining up with pitch forks and torches to execute Roseanne for what she said online are now in defense of what Gunn has said online despite what both of them said are equally as bad. I think this thing all comes down to being agenda driven and has nothing to do with morals, it's whoever side you are on you will defend that individual regardless of what they've said even if it makes them hypocrites in the end.
The argument would seem to be that James Gunn’s sense of humor was in the past, and he has indicated being a different person now, whereas Roseanne’s tweet was posted mere hours before she got fired. That’s on top of the fact that Roseanne Narr regularly promotes dangerous conspiracy theories like Pizzagate (which, in case anyone didn’t know, nearly got the owner of a pizza joint killed).
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, AJG said:
I said it once here before: he didn’t get fired for those tweets, he got fired because Disney knew something we didn’t and cut him off before more damage was done.
This shit will not be the last thing to come out about Gunn.
Those pictures don’t seem anymore damning than the tweets. If anything, they’re actually pretty mild in comparison.
-
4 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
Yeah, this whole thing is really getting out of control. It never ends...:(
The worst part is that when I saw that headline, I at first assumed that he was actually caught attending a NAMBLA meeting, or that he was having one of those Bryan Singer parties, but when I saw that it was just some dumb costume party with a bunch of other adults, I immediately facepalmed hard. Are these fuckers really this bitter over Roseanne getting fired?
-
I still have absolutely no idea what this silly award is going to mean for the BP nominees. Will making a certain amount of money officially prevent a movie from getting nominated for Best Picture?
-
1
-
-
Just now, Shawn said:
Next year, they could have most of the top nominees in that case.
Captain Marvel
Avengers 4
Lion King
Spider-Man: FFH
Episode 9
And those are just the safe to safe-ish bets...
Spider-Man FFH isn’t technically a Disney movie. It doesn’t change the fact that Disney will most likely be the only studio to actually win anything in this category, though.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Ryan Reynolds said:
from his personal website, they caught him
Let that be a lesson. If you dress up as Jason Voorhees for a costume party, it means that you’re admitting to being a serial killer!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Blaze Heatnix said:
For fuck’s sake. Are these alt-right idiots still trying to milk this drama for all its worth?
-
2 minutes ago, Boxx93 said:
This is bullshit. The whole point of making Venom rated R was to explore the darkeness of the character and as an awnser to the success of Deadpool. Once you take that away and force a PG-13 rating, it just becomes yet another generic superhero movie.
Fucking Sony, always ruining everything.
I remembered thinking that exact same thing about Suicide Squad. Of course, that movie was a financial hit, so it doesn’t seem like a PG-13 rating should hurt this movie from a financial standpoint.
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
In any case, it’s time to move on now. Gunn isn’t coming back, so the detractors can rest easy, and the people who wanted him to be rehired are just going to have to get over it. Marvel is going to need to find someone else to help oversee the cosmic side of the MCU moving forward.