Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Another victim of the Joke Police - James Gunn

Recommended Posts

Its a conspiracy ! We don’t understand the genius behind a good pedophilia joke 😂 it’s cool man, lets agree to disagree. I personally like to leave the children outta my jokes, alot of of other material to cover that doesn’t relate to sexual assault. Things like the Sony A7siii only rumored to be 8bit. Thats a funnier joke courtesy of Sony @Andrew Reid

D83B815C-60EB-4F49-9FE5-BC5E0A08B711.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
5 hours ago, Snowfun said:

Let’s get back to discussing the benefits of raw over 422 or FF vs MFT or resolve vs FCP or whatever trivia keeps us engaged and entertained.

I dunno, some of those topics get even more heated and explosively dangerous than this thread does! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snowfun said:

Q: ”what do you call a sheep stuck in a fence on Orkney”? (An island off Scotland)

As a Kiwi, if you swap out "Orkney" for "New Zealand" I won't get offended. 
 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah we are breaking the rule of "Never talk about Politics and Religion". It is a no win situation that only pisses the other side off.

As a big time political nerd I really enjoy a good robust political discussion. My old flatmate and I would have great times as we're from opposite ends of the spectrum and could have debates for hours, he'd even get very agitated and almost shouting as he is jumping up and down! Literally. ha. (not me though, I'm pretty calm, wouldn't even raise my voice)

But never would he be upset at me personally (he'd just be shouting and stuff because he is so passionate about the topic), and we'd still be the firmest of best friends at the end of it. 

Unfortunately this is a rare trait in people, as most people let it influence too heavily their opinion overall of the person. Thus sadly in recent years I've decided it is best I just keep my mouth shut (although sometimes... I can't resist the temptation!).

Because many people might think of you as scum from hell simply for sharing a differing political opinion. 

As for me, I don't mind if you hold a crazy idea or three, as I can see the bigger picture that you're more than just that. For instance let's say you believe something totally mad like the earth is flat. Sure, I can 100% disagree with that, but also at the same time still respect you as a firm friend who will help me out in a pinch, a tech wiz whose expertise I respect, and a hardworking fellow crew member, or whatever else just to give an example. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 1:33 PM, Andrew Reid said:

 

An example: Hilary Clinton ran a poor campaign, that's a fact. She lost, that's a fact. It could be interpreted as me being pro-Trump or as a personal opinion.... But she did. She was simply a poor campaigner. Unlike Bernie Sanders. 

The reasons Sanders did reasonably well is because of the caucus system in some states that favor activists and because other states had open primaries (ie not restricted to Democrats only). A clear example of that was Washington State, where Sanders won the caucuses easily, getting 74 delegates to Clinton's 27. But due to state law, later on there was a non binding primary held run by the state itself, and Clinton won 54% of the vote then. Clinton had the support of Democrats but because of the rigged system Sanders got the delegates. It was like that in may other caucus states as well (incidentally, that was the main reason Obama got the nomination 8 years earlier). In open primaries Clinton usually won convincingly among registered democrats but Sanders won big among independents and republicans who participated in the primary. If the Democratic primary contest was only closed primaries Sanders would have trailed Clinton badly and there would have been no contest. The only reason he came close to Clinton was because of support from activists and independents/republicans. The damage done to Clinton's campaign as a result of having to have a bitter fight with someone who was not even a Democrat for the nomination probably cost her the national race. If you want to point fingers, point them at Sanders, he singlehandedly has more to do with Trump being president than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mokara said:

Clinton had the support of Democrats but because of the rigged system Sanders got the delegates.

Wait....    what??? 

Just ask any Sanders supporter and they'll tell you the exact opposite! That the systems was rigged heavily in the Clintons' favor!
 

1 hour ago, Mokara said:

The only reason he came close to Clinton was because of support from activists and independents/republicans.

And to say Republican supporters helped Sanders win primaries by voting for him is I feel just bizarre.

Independents? Yes. As Sanders was reaching out to voters who felt the old established Democratic Party were not speaking to them, but Sanders was different and bringing in a lot of young new blood to the Democratic Party's cause. 

Is this a bad thing? (from the perspective of a Democratic Party supporter that is, just to clarify: I'm not one. I'm not even an American citizen)
 I'd say probably not, because you don't win elections by purely appealing to your base but also by bringing in the independents / middle ground over to your side as well. 

So to say a candidate was appealing to the independents as well, that sounds like a compliment to me? And a positive trait you'd want in your party's candidate. Rather than the negative you are spinning this as. (although often this can be a negative for a candidate during the primaries season, as you win elections by appealing to the middle ground but you often win primaries by appealing to your party's "middle ground" which can be much much further to the left/right than where the country's middle ground is)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Wait....    what??? 

Just ask any Sanders supporter and they'll tell you the exact opposite! That the systems was rigged heavily in the Clintons' favor!
 

And to say Republican supporters helped Sanders win primaries by voting for him is I feel just bizarre.

Independents? Yes. As Sanders was reaching out to voters who felt the old established Democratic Party were not speaking to them, but Sanders was different and bringing in a lot of young new blood to the Democratic Party's cause. 

Is this a bad thing? (from the perspective of a Democratic Party supporter that is, just to clarify: I'm not one. I'm not even an American citizen)
 I'd say probably not, because you don't win elections by purely appealing to your base but also by bringing in the independents / middle ground over to your side as well. 

So to say a candidate was appealing to the independents as well, that sounds like a compliment to me? And a positive trait you'd want in your party's candidate. Rather than the negative you are spinning this as. (although often this can be a negative for a candidate during the primaries season, as you win elections by appealing to the middle ground but you often win primaries by appealing to your party's "middle ground" which can be much much further to the left/right than where the country's middle ground is)

Sure they will say that because that is the only way to get around the fact that Clinton was the clear favorite among Democrats for THEIR candidate. The caucus system is the biggest rigged and most corrupt system of them all. It heavily favors candidates supported by activists on the left (and the right, for the Republican contests), which skews the results away from the popular choice. The Washington results made that VERY clear, since we got vastly different results with the two methods of selecting delegates. If the caucus states had proper primaries Clinton would likely have won most of them. Instead Sanders got the majority of the delegates from those states, simply because he had the support of left wing activists. Clinton was the heavy favorite among rank and file registered democrats, while Sanders base was activists and independents who usually vote Republican although registered as such. Pretty much the only primaries he did well in were the open primaries, Clinton dominated the ones restricted to registered Democrats. And it should be obvious why THOSE people were supporting him - they did not want a centrist Democratic candidate in the general.

The problem with open primaries is that you get a bunch of people who are not going to vote for your party in the general election, their objective is simply to get someone in who their guy can beat, and to stoke up dissent in the opposing party. They WANT to nominate some on the far wing of the opposing party so that in the general their guy would stand a better chance. Many of those independents and republicans who voted in the open primaries for Sanders would NOT vote for him in the general because he is a socialist while they are center/center right. The Republican operatives WANTED Sanders to win because it would guarantee them the presidency. And if he didn't win they were going to stir up as much resentment as possible in the left wing activists so they would stay home and not vote for Clinton in the general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/22/2018 at 9:44 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Superb director.

But apparently people die "due to jokes" now

It's pretty dangerous to defend Gunn though. given the current climate.

Now I'm starting to realise why the buffoon wreaker Trump won the election. People are genuinely sick of the hysterical PC climate and the impact it has on real lives, yours and ours careers, and our art /freedom of expression.

You're making a moral judgement concerning the situation without stating and interacting with his many comments, the video he posted, or his correspondence with a convicted pedophile. What this whole conversation should be doing is helping us realise that there seem to be significant problems deeply rooted in Hollywood that need addressing. It's not normal behaviour for a 44 year old, it is broken. The politics is real though, a single tweet from a conservative, or a single recorded bad word, and the media goes into meltdown and decides they should be destroyed and the American people insulted. Incidentally, you say "wreaker Trump" (sic) but I think you'll find the economic and employment stats are doing pretty well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Orangenz said:

 Incidentally, you say "wreaker Trump" (sic) but I think you'll find the economic and employment stats are doing pretty well.

WOW. Really? Can you state a single instance in the past 100 years where a combination of 3% growth with a 5% fiscal deficit has ever turned out 'well' for the US economy???? (Or the Greek economy for that matter.)
(admittedly getting seriously off topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who defend Trump on the US economy don't realise that the economy is like a very large ship that takes a long time to respond to the commander.

The changes Trump is making will be felt a few years from now.

Today, you're experiencing the decisions the previous commander in chief made.

Some of Trump's policies are impacting on people immediately, like the trade wars with his allies in Europe and China.

If you think trade wars are good for jobs, think again.

Anyway back on our favourite topic....

Today the hounds are out again making certain ideas and satires off limits for comedy.

It's as bad as burning books.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44936332

This time it's the Rick & Morty co-creator and the guy behind the sitcom Community.

Nearly 10 years ago he filmed an online skit, a parody of Dexter, called Daryl.

His fictional character abuses a doll.

And over at Netflix they are not allowed to write ideas about fat girls becoming thinner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44934692

Of course none of the outraged have actually seen either the skit, or the show.

And it's all fiction we're talking about.

FICTION.

It's like suggesting computer games turn people into serial killers.

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As a big time political nerd I really enjoy a good robust political discussion. My old flatmate and I would have great times as we're from opposite ends of the spectrum and could have debates for hours, he'd even get very agitated and almost shouting as he is jumping up and down! Literally. ha. (not me though, I'm pretty calm, wouldn't even raise my voice)

But never would he be upset at me personally (he'd just be shouting and stuff because he is so passionate about the topic), and we'd still be the firmest of best friends at the end of it. 

Unfortunately this is a rare trait in people, as most people let it influence too heavily their opinion overall of the person. Thus sadly in recent years I've decided it is best I just keep my mouth shut (although sometimes... I can't resist the temptation!).

Yeah it's a shame it has become so personal.

We're in such a selfish age of individualism, everything has to be.

So one cannot have an opinion any more without it becoming a character judgement.

And one cannot defend a person's career and films, without also being seen to be defending the content of their jokes.

John Lasseter is gone and nobody defended the guy.

First they came for the celebrities and nobody spoke out... one day it will be the everyman, and still nobody will speak up.

10 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Its a conspiracy!

You're the one saying Kids Are Evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Today the hounds are out again making certain ideas and satires off limits for comedy.

It's as bad as burning books.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-44936332

This time it's the Rick & Morty co-creator and the guy behind the sitcom Community.

Nearly 10 years ago he filmed an online skit, a parody of Dexter, called Daryl.

His fictional character abuses a doll.

 

 

Nooooooooooooooooo...............   not Rick and Morty!!! 😞

 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

And over at Netflix they are not allowed to write ideas about fat girls becoming thinner.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-44934692

Of course none of the outraged have actually seen either the skit, or the show.

And it's all fiction we're talking about.

FICTION.

 

I'd watch that.

Or at least give the first episode a go. 

(and anyone who thinks her character at the start of the series is healthy is delusional)

http://www.dailyedge.ie/insatiable-backlash-4143489-Jul2018/

It is sad people even feel a need to defend the show.


How does a person even think like that?!?!

Or do they seriously think there are plenty of actresses out there who'd happily go for real from very morbidly obese to super hot overnight just for a Netflix show??

Well, as of course that doesn't seem likely at all it could feasibly be done for real that extreme transformation by any serious actress (although, we seem to more often see male actors willing to put their bodies through radical transformations?! Perhaps. I'd be curious to see a study on this), what are the alternatives?

Does a "skinny suit" exist to turn a morbidly obese person into a super model?
Of course not!! Don't be rediculious. 

Thus of course she had to wear a fat suit. 

There. Is. No. Other. Option.

(except perhaps CGI?? But we're still a few more years away from that)

 

 

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's like suggesting computer games turn people into serial killers.

Sorry, you're a few decades too late on that. 

People have already tried that!

People were suggesting such crazy theories even back in the 1990's

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-harris-levels/

Heck, you can go further back to say the early 1980's when people blamed all sorts of crazy stuff on D&D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeons_%26_Dragons_controversies

And I'm sure every generation had their scrapegoat. Be it Rock and Roll music, D&D, or Doom or whatever. 

Just I fear within the last decade that the crazy has racketed up many levels to a degree we've never seen before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, so much virtue signalling, so little respect for artistic freedom and storytelling.

No wonder the bigger studios don't take risks any more.

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Just I fear within the last decade that the crazy has racketed up many levels to a degree we've never seen before. 

You're absolutely right. It is an age of hysteria and outrage and fanaticism. The arts is timid, self-censoring. Usually you need a vigorous artistic and film-making community to shine a light on the hysteria... It ain't happening much now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But let's face it, in an age where everything is fighting for attention, 'hysteria' is totally counter-productive.

We are all now going to tune into 'skinny girl turns into a psychopath' simply because lots of people say we shouldnt. And I bet it is total crap. 

And noone was really interested in watching 'who is America' until Sarah Palin said that Sacha Baron Cohen was evil.

And we all tune into Trump hoping to see his latest car wreck...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever think you're just watching the wrong films? If you expect cutting edge critique and edgy material from your big studio films then you might be looking in the wrong places. Off the top of my head, did you see the horror film Raw, released last year? Yorgos Lanthimos previous films spring to mind. I wouldn't say filmmaking isn't taking any risks. I remember watching Gasper Noe's Love a few years back which featured a 3D cum shot.

I'm curious, Trevor Noah has recently been called up admist all this Twitter drudging on a joke he made about Australian aboriginals a few years back, here. Are we thinking this is PC culture gone mad as well? Where is the line drawn here? Because having lived in Australia, and having plenty of friends with Aboriginal background, I know how a joke like this would be replayed over and over again at schools and universities to make them feel like shit. I'm sure it's the same with people who are overweight. I mean, what a boring target anyway. The most risk adverse 'joke' you can make. And for what? All for a quick cheap laugh. Is that something we should be desperately striving to protect?

Maybe, in this age of mass hysteria, we shouldn't be looking at the fat, the young, the disadvantaged to get our jokes and our kicks. Maybe we should be looking at people a little higher up in the food chain. Basically what Sasha Baron Cohen's new show is trying to do right now. Not with a lot of success, but still, it's nice to be laughing up rather than down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2018 at 2:05 AM, Andrew Reid said:

I think what this topic is telling me, is that the house of forum is due a spring clean. Damphousse was nearly banned in 2014 for his complete disregard for any form of respect for mods including myself as the site owner, and I let him stay... 4 years later, I think I'm out of any more tolerance. Maybe it is time to invite some new blood to post on the forum and find out who is the driftwood and isn't contributing.

I don't know what was in 2014 (term similar to that tweeter messages by fired man) - so maybe Damphousse collected mistakes and made growing irritation - but judging solely on this (provocative) thread he has equally based perspective and argumentation as anybody. Obviously, you are sick of this man's behavior, attitude or posted intonation... But maybe he could say it was/is his way of joking/provoking authority... So, I can see some formal similarity between your and Disney's decision - your tolerance threshold is located at "form of (un)respect for mods including myself" for prolonged period... Disney tolerance threshold is located at, say, "form of joking (un)respect for children offended by pedophilia" for prolonged period, or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andrew Reid and you probably don’t even know why the brand is called “kidz r evil”. Its a metaphor for how the older generation doesn’t even try to understand the younger generation. They demonize and vilify them instead. Sound familiar ? 😂 there’s depth to me. Im not that surface level of a person you know ? Look deeper ; THIS is artistic expression not jokes about touching kids. You see jokes about touching kids are not only creepy they’re corny and despicable in addition to violating the rule of law. This is what happens when people try to be edgy but end up looking really stupid

try mentioning how artsy & hillarious that guys tweets about kids were at a dinner date. Especially the one about “fcking the little boy next to me” That’ll go over well.

people aren’t virtue signalling here. If a Canon,Fuji,Sony,Nikon,DPreview etc rep was out here with tweets like that they would be gone. No argument about it because we actually have laws in the states that protect kids PLUS the optics of it looks terrible.😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

No wonder the bigger studios don't take risks any more.


Which is a pity, I'd rather see twenty risk taking $10 million dollar films than another $200 million dollar blockbuster. 

And it could even end up being overall less financially risky for the studio, as there are decent odds one of those twenty films will end up being a break out success, vs the risk of putting all your eggs in the one basket in the hope of a "blockbuster film". #InvestmentDiversification

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronFilm said:


Which is a pity, I'd rather see twenty risk taking $10 million dollar films than another $200 million dollar blockbuster. 

And it could even end up being overall less financially risky for the studio, as there are decent odds one of those twenty films will end up being a break out success, vs the risk of putting all your eggs in the one basket in the hope of a "blockbuster film". #InvestmentDiversification

 

Well they would probably make the same either way at the box office, except they’d have 20 marketing campaigns to pay for instead of one. They’d need larger staffs to perform those jobs. They’d need 20 times the amount of prints to send around. The Hollywood studio blockbuster is a calculated investment. But I agree it is a shame there isn’t more of a mix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...