You think Will Smith would deliberately sabotage his reputation and career by smacking someone in the face on live tv, then using the F word twice?
GET REAL, WAKE UP, YOU'VE LOST YOUR MARBLES
I think some people just have something inside them that says - trust no one ever. Parents or some authority lied to them as a child, people have ran out on them, or something similar. They’ll happily believe conspiracy theories because it justifies them not trusting anyone. Then cast doubt on seemingly obvious things like will smith just throwing a tantrum. Or maybe some people just like to argue for the attention? Either way, it seems logical arguments won’t work and are “too simple” of an explanation.
shareSome people are not that smart, or just trolls, or they could be onto something. It depends on what they say, whether what they say makes sense or not.
You always see in movies and TV shows there are conspiracy theorists, they almost always sound crazy and what they say do not make sense.
Like in "Die Hard 4.0", the lead Matt Farrell, saying news are manipulated, but it is to make you buy stuff. But we all know, well, for those who pay attention, news are manipulated, just not to make you buy stuff. I think that is the subtle brainwashing there so next time you hear someone say "News are manipulated" you will automatically go "those are crazy conspiracy theorists".
But if news is not manipulated and corporate censored there should not be left wing or right wing news media, there should be just news media. For news to be one sided, it means it reflects the sides of the owners, and the editors they hire. If the news is one sided, that means at the very least they are not telling you the whole truth. At worst they are not telling you the truth at all.
If you think we have left & right wing media, and one of them will tell you the truth, then just remember almost all media are owned and controlled by very rich people, and they have more in common then differences.
Another example is in "That 70s show", Steven Hyde said something like three branches of US government are: military, corporate and Hollywood. That is not true, but there is truth in it, then you hear him kept saying "cars running on water", next time if you hear something about corporations, media tycoons or military industrial complex control of government, Steven Hyde would probably pop into your mind.
Those are something to watch for.
Then there is that @bjensen4 we are seeing now. I don't know if he was trying to do the same thing (sounds like Matt Farrell, doesn't it?), or just being dumb.
I actually figured it out. I think @bjensen4 is working for Pfizer.
For the conspiracy to work, awareness is not enough, there needs to be people talking about Pfizer's new drug. That guy was the only one talking about it. There wasn't even enough people talking about Alopecia, not even a single post about it, other than his that is.
That reminds me of something I’m not quite clear about…Does alopecia ONLY refer to hair loss? Like no one’s dying from this or suffering anything other than hair falling out right? Is it only worse than making a bald joke about someone’s dad because it’s rarer and happens to women as well? Also, if it’s so sensitive if a topic for them, why no wig?
shareAre people softer on men who wear a hairpiece?
shareI don’t really know. Maybe they’re equal? It seems in both cases when someone’s clearly wearing a wig people don’t say anything about it until that person leaves the room, male or female.
shareDespite Will's comments, I don't think that was driver anyway. Imo, Rock's 2016 Oscar comments were far more significant. When that happened, I didn't think alopecia, I thought here's the revenge for when Rock hosted the Oscars and slammed them both. I'm back, I'm winning an Oscar tonight, and here's something for you and your jokes about me and my wife. Backfired, of course. He was minutes from the finish line, but he blew it in the final lap. Emotions ran high, and it came out in a weird way.
shareThat's as may be, but seriously, if you don't mistrust anything that comes to the media through a publicist's office then you are too naive to live! Almost everything published about the people in the entertainment industry is bullshit, if it wasn't invented by a publicist then it was invented by a fan or tabloid.
That said, I think that slap was for real, and right now Smith's publicist is wondering whether trying to salvage Smith's reputation, or jumping out of a 40th story window, will hurt less.
He did it all to lift the Oscar broadcasts, ya know! He loves ABC -- and a show he once boycotted -- more than himself. Don't you get it?? This year's Oscars tagline was "Movie Lovers Unite" Now they unite against Will Smith! It was the perfect time in history to use violence as a gimmick. Great plan. You're quickly becoming a pariah now, Will -- but the Oscars say thanks for the boost! Of course, we'll inevitably have to punish you as the public condemnation grows, but you understand. And that little bit with Denzel before your speech was the perfect finishing touch. I'm sure Denzel rehearsed that with Will backstage. Incredibly convincing. Almost seemed real!
shareBut that's not uniting movie lovers. It's turning people against movies and the whole industry. People can go on YouTube or Netflix and watch older movies that they actually care about. Who is going to watch 3 to 4 hour Oscar show after the inevitable watering down of the humor and increased security protocols this is likely to prompt? The odds of this happening again are going to be slim to none.
shareI'm a bit confused over what exactly they are saying was staged: the slap itself, or the reaction to an actual slap? If it was a "stage slap" then we are, by definition, talking about a mass deception which had to have been planned out in advance. Smith would have to have known EXACTLY where to stand in relation to the camera, which would imply rehearsal and planning involving many people. And if this was the case, the ENTIRE audience would have to be in on it, because there is obviously no way everyone could have been fooled if they were seeing it from a different angle. Ergo, we must dismiss the first part: the slap WAS real.
So, what's the fall back position? That would be that the slap was real, thereby reducing the number of people involved greatly. So, if we entertain this as possibility, what would the motive be? Will Smith by himself makes no sense, because how would he know what Rock was going to say? Therefore, they BOTH had to be in on it, at the very least. Why, though? What do do one or either of them gain? Or that one or both of them were in cahoots with others. Why? Higher ratings (maybe) next year? Seems like a lot of effort for very little. Even if it was staged and this was the motive, how likely is it that this will cause people to watch in large numbers next year? Who is going to watch an entire 3 and a half hour show full of nominations for movies they've never seen and don't care about, on the off chance that there will be another bench clearing brawl? If I don't miss my guess, Hollywood would like this to be a narrative about "civility", "bullying" or "hair loss", meaning the most likely result is that the Gervais/Rock "celebrity roast" style of moderation will be phased out. The only thing anyone remembers about recent Oscars is Rickey Gervais' laced in acid commentary on Hollywood and Chris Rock getting slapped. Take away that and the odds of such an incident happening again are rare.... giving people even less incentive to tune in next year.
JUST FOR FUN: Here is a little conspiracy theory for you which makes more sense. Hollywood wants to put an end to kamikaze hosts like Gervais ever being invited again. You can't outright ban "celebrity roasting" without making it look like you are silencing whistle blowers. People would suspect the motives. So what do you do? You stage a fake incident which justifies cracking down on hosts that they can't control. Everybody is against bullying and insensitivity, right? No more abusive humor at the Oscars! No more barbed critiques of Hollywood allowed either, of course. To be clear, I DON'T believe this conspiracy theory either, but it makes a hell of lot more sense than the ones I've heard.
Which do you prefer? People thinking Will faked it, or people thinking Will's outburst is representative of the entire Black community's propensity for impulsive violence.
shareI don't know. I don't really see that this is an upside to this being faked. (1) making a popular, Oscar-winning actor looks like a violent thug with no impulse control, (2) the spectacle of two prominent and successful African-American getting into grudge match and one of them getting slapped while at the same time promoting higher status in the film industry for African-Americans, (3) Hollywood merely reinforcing the perception of much of the public that they are out of touch and hypocritical, and that we live in a two-tiered society but at the same time thinking this is going to boost ratings.
sharechristomacin,
I totally agree, I don't see what could possibly be gained from pulling a stunt like this. People already have negative attitudes towards celebrities hence the reason why the Oscar ratings have been taking huge hits over the last 10-15 years or so.
This would just reinforce people's attitudes towards the Hollywood elites. And according to the new reports, this was the 2nd lowest ratings in Oscars history. So again, people not nearly as many are watching.
I think it’s more representative of what a strange family dynamic, stressors and pressure can do to a person, regardless of skin color.
shareregardless of skin color.
I don't get how 'thinking Will's outburst is representative of the entire Black community's propensity for impulsive violence.' is even a valid option, why would anyone come to that conclusion?
If a white guy smacked another white guy would anyone consider it representative of the entire white community's propensity for impulsive violence?
If a white guy smacked another white guy would anyone consider it representative of the entire white community's propensity for impulsive violence? I really would like a response to this.
share[deleted]
I think the guy works for Pfizer, is here to promote the awareness of their new drug. I bet you now know they have a new drug for hair loss.
A conspiracy theory about a conspiracy theorist, interesting, isn't it?
1000% agreed. He would never take part in a publicity stunt that would compromise his nice-guy image.
shareOr damaging what should be the night of his life, winning an Oscar for Best Actor, comeback complete.
shareExactly. He ruined a moment he's worked years for with that outburst. He embarrassed himself and the Williams' family. I think it's also an insult to the other winners/nominees as well as every one who has spent countless times being nominated only to never win.
shareNone of the reasons for why it was staged even stack up. So many things tell us it wasn't even from the small things like Will Smith initially laughing at the joke, which makes it seem that much more real. Like if it was staged you'd think he'd look unhappy about it right from when the joke is made.
shareIt's funny that some use that same example as proof that it was staged. As though Smith made a mistake, forgot about the bit, laughed (b/c the camera never ever focuses on the targets of these jokes). then remembered the bit again, got fake angry and went up there. As opposed to he laughed, b/c you're supposed to seem like you can take a joke, but then saw his wife wasn't laughing, then changed his reaction -- as though guys never suddenly lose the smile once they see that their woman doesn't approve. That never ever happens in real life.
share