MovieChat Forums > movieLoader > Replies
movieLoader's Replies
If the brakes on your car are sabotaged, and you run over and kill someone as a result. Are you guilty?
I'm not up to speed why people think he's scum? Did he bang your mum or something? Why the hate?
I don't care either way, I have my own collection of celebrities I dislike, but hadn't given Baldwin much thought.
> Baldwin will be at least partly culpable as part of the film company.
Okay until now I didn't realise the production company El Dorado Pictures belonged to Alec Baldwin. This explains the payout his company or insurance must pay the family of shot crew member.
He probably didn't mean to fire it, but put enough pressure on trigger to make it fire. This happens a lot, many people have accidentally pulled trigger when playing with a gun, even shot themselves. Video footage of such incidents is common.
If an actor is required by the script to shout angrily at another actor, can the other actor file a workplace harassment complaint? LOL, of course not.
Likewise, Baldwin was obliged to do his job by pointing a prop gun towards camera. It doesn't matter if he pulled trigger or not, it's not meant to be a real gun. Violence in movies is pretend violence.
The person responsible is the one who brought real bullets to a film set. And the film company's secondary responsibility for not meeting basic safety standards. Actors are not responsible for technical components of a film set.
Edit - I didn't realise Alec Baldwin owned the production company. My point stands, but I now see why he (his company) must pay the family of the victim for the breach in safety protocol.
Quora? Fool if I wanted dumb answers to stupid questions, I'd visit quora.
In this case, we don't need brain-dead sources. We need our own brains.
Understanding how a film set works is not rocket science.
If an actor is following the script and directed to shout angrily at another actor, can the other actor file a workplace harassment complaint? LOL, no they cannot. Likewise, Baldwin was obliged to follow the screenplay by shooting a prop gun at the camera. He did that, because he has a job to do. He's a fucking actor holding a gun in a pretend environment.
If you're an actor on a professional film set with camera rolling, you're not going to "check the prop isn't a real gun", don't be ridiculous.
Obviously realistic gun props are used often, and they don't fire real bullets. That's why we don't hear about people getting shot on Hollywood film sets.
LOL, how would you "check" the gun anyway? They are designed to look real. Made of metal. There's a person on set whose entire job is to make sure guns are safe, and that person is not Alec Baldwin! LOL. If the story requires pulling the trigger towards the camera, that's what any actor will do if asked to do it.
I don't give a shit about Baldwin, but he has ZERO responsibility in this.
lol alec baldwin was handed a prop. it's not his fault if the prop was a real gun with real bullets.
> pointless to even argue
Rendered speechless, in other words.
Which bit are you having trouble understanding?
> TOP SECRET
Great movie! Poor excuse for catching a "thief".
> removing documents
So what? The nature of documents are they're portable. They get moved among those with access to those documents. If you make it to president, you get to view documents too. That's how it works.
For some reason you're a passionate subscriber to the idea some great crime happens when certain documents you've never seen, are moved from location A to location B. You've been hustled so well that you're even trying to on-sell the claim to others online. And it only took a two word label "top secret" for you to do that. Interesting.
> "You don't know jack. There is nothing hilarious about a president removing documents"
I mean, documents can be copied easily anyway. He was president for God's sake! The "<b>president has documents</b>" does not sound like a crime. It honestly sounds like a massive strawman with 'top secret' sign hanging around its neck.
"PDF DOWN, PDF DOWN".... "We're receiving intel that the former president opened a PDF that he previously had access to, but has now EXPIRED! ALERT! IN ADDITION A MISSING LIBRARY CARD!"
You're ranting like a drunk driver, swerving all over the place smashing into parked cars, yelling insults out the window!
> WONDERFUL
Maybe what matters is how far we can stray from "wonderful" before the bad reviews come knockin.
> TRY HARDER
It's fun identifying cultural oversteer in big budget fiction TV. The snarky reviews are entertainment of their own. The nutcase comments like yours/mine all part of the fun. Hulk has thick skin so it's all good.
Regarding boobs... weight-lifting women sometimes see a reduced breast size as their physique gets super fit. Nothing wrong with that, it's an anatomical observation. In She-Hulk, her breasts get larger and she gets a ripped footballer body. It's all good, relax. I'm poking fun at a fictitious character in essence.
One thing I did like hearing about in the old comics was how sometimes she tore the pages to take shortcuts in the story, and other devices. I don't really want the series to drop into a volcano. Ok yes I do but she-hulk will survive.
Pretty sure the nuclear capabilities of countries around the world is no secret. Much is already in public domain about the weapons and capabilities of any given country. Number of tanks, number of missiles, types of missiles etc. It's no secret.
It's actually in the public's interest to know, since pressure can be put on countries not following the standards.
Keeping everything "secret" except when it suits the war-mongers, causes mistakes to happen. Such as invading Iraq because WMD's - "EVERYONE LOOK AT THESE DOCTORED PICS! PROOF!"....
Meanwhile Iraq is like "we don't actually have any WMDs. Come have a look for yourself." So America sens inspectors in who don't find anything but they still bombed the fuck out of that country! LOL.
"America.. FUCK YEH! Freedom is the only way, yeah."
It's funny seeing the scale of political attacks against Trump, made to look like he broke the law. The censorship and bizarre "re-education" ideology spreading through far lefty channels is hilarious. Sad and disturbing, but hilarious.
Humans do need art and entertainment in a modern society.
Intention behind creativity is important. It lends to credibility and integrity... are you familiar with these concepts?
> "I ALSO ENJOYED...."
Your enjoyment is irrelevant. You probably enjoy picking corn out of your own shit.
She-Hulk has an athletic man's body, painted green. Her boobs should have shrunk, not grown larger. The character is flawed, the whole idea doesn't complement the Hulk at all. Created because an executive wanted a pre-emptive investment in TV rights.
Go back in time and don't make the show. We've had enough hobbits and rings, it's boring. Ship has sailed.
Make something new, fresh and original. If I'm talking to Bezos, it would be "finance" something new, fresh, original. And whatever you do, don't delete negative reviews.
Reading the Wikipedia page for She-Hulk, it doesn't sound like the character was created in good faith or for genuine creative reasons. Marvel created She-Hulk so they would own the rights...
<blockquote>"Marvel was afraid that the TV show's executives might suddenly introduce a female version of the Hulk.... So Marvel decided to publish their own version of such a character to make sure that if a similar one showed up in the television series, Marvel would own the rights."</blockquote>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/She-Hulk
The question "do we need this show in first place" can be reasonably answered with "no" when considering the history. It was never even close to the popularity of Hulk, and tries to do too much in terms of the whole attorney thing, and maintaining her personality when in hulk form. If anything, a female hulk should definitely have a changed personality when angry. It's odd they allowed her to stay the same, it makes it kind of boring. Where's the struggle? She seems to have no issues and just cruises along. That doesn't make good viewing.
No, he won't think twice because he shouldn't need to. Comedians make jokes, that's what they do. There was no behavior to correct, apart from Will Smith's.
"Someone else's wife"... that's old-fashioned sexist thinking. The wife belongs to the husband, and she needs "defending" from words by an angry, shouting husband. Asserting his physical dominance to the whole room and striking anyone who makes a joke he doesn't care for. LOL, what a fucking idiot.
> "Talking does nothing."
So your idea is to solve the world's problems one punch at a time? Great plan, buddy.
None of that makes sense. "Awards not being rescinded" is not violence.
All you're doing is *disagreeing* with the scope and details of punishment or repercussions.
It's almost an administrative issue you're raising, as to the details of how big the ban-stick should be and who gets swiped with the ban stick. It has nothing to do with Will Smith smacking the shit out of Chris Rock, correctly described as the worst act of violence at the Oscars ever.
Yeh it's what-about-ism by the person above who mentions Polanski.
The Polanski saga may well be true, but I'd need to waste time looking it up and verifying court dates and awards ceremonies to see whether people clapped with full knowledge he was a guilty rapist.
Apparently he pleaded not guilty, and while waiting sentencing won the award? Who knows, but it's irrelevant.
Films are never the work of one person. Banning the film hurts others. Censorship is wrong. Should we remove the audio track from movies that a sound man worked on who is found guilty of rape? Of course not.
To avoid needing to paginate the thread list polluted by your posts! but I don't care to any significant degree, I thought that wouldn't need stating.