gildings in this subreddit have paid for 35.83 months of server time

50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 by josesimon09 in movies

[–]tabiotjui 745 points746 points  (0 children)

The people signing the petition must be idiots because the content of the tweets are indefensible

This guy was 40 when he started sending this type of shit. Not 20. Not an angsty 4channer.

He was 40/41 years old in 2008 with the first few tweets and hundreds over the years till about 2014 in terms of the most vulgar ones.

Almost all about fucking kids or similar scenarios.

I don't see how anyone that's actually seen some of the archived tweets would sign a petition for his resumption at Disney just because they like two movies he did.


Yes the person who took him down did it for his own political reasons but he wouldn't have been able to do it had gunn not had extensive amounts of tweets that were awful.

No 40 year old in any industry would think such things were exceptable to say over social media.

He reaped what he sowed.

50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 by josesimon09 in movies

[–]AintGotNoBrakes -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I love the fact that that as recent as last week he was talking shit on Trump, and this week is career is ruined. Trump Curse is real.


50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 by josesimon09 in movies

[–]uckTheSaints 882 points883 points  (0 children)

I wish some of these so-called defenders of liberty would start to understand what freedom of speech is AND isn’t. Roseanne is allowed to say whatever she wants. It doesn’t mean @ABCNetwork needs to continue funding her TV show if her words are considered abhorrent.

— James Gunn (@JamesGunn) May 29, 2018

ayyyy lmao

Official Discussion: Hereditary [SPOILERS} by mi-16evilPaddington rulz ok in movies

[–]PsychedelicSpinoza 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It reminded me a lot of the shinning, both aesthetically and in how the whole film is ambiguous on whether what we’re seeing is real or whether it’s mental illness (although it’s obviously mental illness, not a single supernatural scene couldn’t be explained by a clue given earlier that’s linked with mental illness). As someone who experiences psychosis, I also really appreciated how it sorta captured perfectly what my paranoid psychotic episodes feel like. Although I do wish psychosis wouldn’t be linked to violence like it is in the film, because people who experience psychosis are less violent than normal people typically. But that aside, man. What a phenomenal film.

Edit: ty for the gold.

50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 by josesimon09 in movies

[–]CaptainDogeSparrow 8774 points8775 points  (0 children)

Sony game dev here!

I can't say much but we are actually making a port of Bloodbourne for PC using the technique FROM used to make Dark Souls Remastered. It's in early production and will take a lot of time to finish, but we are working closely to FROM to make it as good as their PS4 game. I have a pic of The Hunter against the first boss, The Cleric Beast , just a second.

edit: Here it is. I hope you all like it!!!

50,000 sign petition for Disney to rehire James Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 by josesimon09 in movies

[–]AMeanCow 2490 points2491 points  (0 children)

Works great for not having to be bothered caring about anything so you can just sit back and make snarky comments on reddit all day, like most people here seem to do.

This is a deeply cynical community. It feels like /r/nothingeverhappens is far more representational of what this site is really like.

Some of the more common cynical views you see here all day long:

  • Voting doesn't matter

  • Activism doesn't work

  • Social issues aren't real

  • You're going to suffer just for being you

  • The country is doomed

  • The world is doomed

  • [insert political alignment here] are keeping me from succeeding

  • I'll be alone forever

  • That thing you like isn't actually very good, here's why.

  • Your opinion doesn't matter

  • Your feelings don't matter

  • Your research and studies are wrong

  • You're wrong

  • "This will probably get downvoted"

  • "I'll probably get banned for this"

And on and on.

edit: gold doesn't matter, we're all going to die anyway.

What James Gunn’s Firing Means for Marvel, ‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,’ and Hollywood at Large by Kludgy33 in movies

[–]clwestbr 206 points207 points  (0 children)

Gunn also apologized for his bullshit (which it is, it's asshole bullshit and he was an asshole) way back when he was hired for Guardians. He's grown as a person and indeed changed his stance.

There has got to be a statue of limitations on this kind of thing. We're not encouraging people to get better, we're encouraging them to live in fear. I take the same stance on Emile Hirsch. Almost a decade ago (maybe further back at this point) he strangled a woman. It was reprehensible and disgusting and done while wasted. He was sentenced by a court, publicly apologized, and served his sentence (which I found a bit lax but it was decided on by a court of law). Since then he has quit drinking completely and become a better person but surprise surprise, when he was cast in the new Tarantino film the internet lashed out and called for a boycott.

This behavior is dangerous and allows people to ruin careers with no more than a tweet about something that happened a long time ago. Should they suffer the legal consequences? Absolutely. But then they should be allowed to return to work. What Gunn tweeted was gross and disgusting and also the kind of thing he's grown beyond. We need to support people growing and changing, not just allow them to be raked over the coals despite any growth. Societies grow and so do people, but only if we allow it. Cernovich is getting exactly what he wants out of this situation and it is a lack of growth.

SHAZAM! - Official Teaser Trailer [HD] by sbilogic in movies

[–]ItsAMeMitchell 1280 points1281 points  (0 children)

That's because his name was actually supposed to be Backlighting

Godzilla: King of the Monsters - Official Comic-Con Trailer by Torrrs in movies

[–]ItalicsWhore 15 points16 points  (0 children)

There really isn’t. I don’t know why I let people like you annoy me so much. But it must be because if I can tell you’re just an insufferable person through such a cold device like my phone you must be an even bigger jackass in real life.

Godzilla: King of the Monsters - Official Comic-Con Trailer by Torrrs in movies

[–]PainStorm14 717 points718 points  (0 children)

...Charlie Day's character in Pacific Rim definitely tried

Charlie gets molested by Kaiju

EDIT: Holy moly, thanks for the gold, I am honored!!!

Stanley Kubrick's opinions on Pulp Fiction, Schindler's List and Gone With The Wind by justonemoreplz in movies

[–]Triquelli 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spoilers ahead. The new understanding begins with the official poster, which most people see before they watch the movie, and ends with the idea that the movie could be called "The Girl in the Red Coat", and that would be a good title for it. So I'll try to justify going from the movie poster, to the alternative title.

The official movie poster and the movie title should reflect what the movie is about. Look at the official poster. In a blog, Benjamin Naylor attempted to explain why Saul Bass' Schindler's List poster was rejected by the studio. The graphics artists who design movie posters often go minimalist in order to capture in a simple, striking graphic, the 'aboutness' of a film. Let's talk about what is 'aboutness'? Aboutness is the relevance of a text to its reader. Aboutness can be seen as a clarification, that makes data or information more clear and easily retrieved. Aboutness does that to information, and it makes aboutness a logical necessity. If we didn't have aboutness, we wouldn't be able to describe the world around us in a proper way. Movie critics provide a good example of aboutness judgments. When some critics rave and others pan, it is not because they have seen different physical texts; rather, all the technical knowledge, topical knowledge, emotions and beliefs of each critic are being engaged in the construction of a response to the physical text.

Ebert began his 2nd and last review of Schindler's List by writing that the film isn't about the Holocaust, it's really two parallel character studies, and the Holocaust is the field of the story. If Ebert's response to the text of the movie is valid, wouldn't the official movie poster display images of Neeson and Fiennes? Neither of Ebert's reviews mentions the most criticized scenes in the entire film - the breakdown scene and the red coat scene. However, the official movie poster by Tom Martin apparently displays Schindler hand-in-hand with red coat girl, but that didn't actually happen, it's an image taken from Schindler's subconscious imagination. You can google minimalist posters for Schindler's List, many artists have made them. the search is images: schindler's list minimalist poster. Google's algorithms place the most important images at the top left corner and less important images down to the bottom right corner. Lots of red coats in the results. The first 5 images have red coats. I think Tom Martin and other minimalist poster artists are on to something. It was deep in Schindler's psyche to save red coat girl, he didn't, and for that he wept. The most criticized scenes in the movie are also the most misunderstood scenes.

The next idea in the new understanding is that a character's onscreen time does not determine the importance of that character. If not for red coat girl, Oskar Schindler would have gone back to Germany with a steamer trunk, two steamer trunks full of money and wouldn't have saved anyone. Can we all agree on that point?

Schindler's motives can be understood by noting the importance of the girl in red. Spielberg dropped a few hints in a 2007 TCM interview. He said that something changed Schindler, no one knew what day it happened, but that something was "Schindler's Rosebud". Those hints can be explored further. Schindler's transformation is not a slow burn, it is sudden. Only two camera shots depict it, and the total screen time that shows the transformation lasts only a few seconds. Both shots are outdoors, show the same side of his face, and both shots are accompanied by choral music. Schindler's behavior changes drastically after each scene, and is consistent during the scenes before and after them. So the 3 hour film is trisected into three parts, roughly equal in time of about one hour each. Each of the three parts has its own theme: Profiteer, Pragmatist, Savior. The black & white film stock allows the girl in red to be elevated in importance to just above Schindler himself. She is the heart and center of the movie.

The other most criticized scene is the breakdown scene at the end, before the epilogue. This climactic scene is misunderstood by those who think it's too schmaltzy. It's thought of as the "I could have done more, boo-hoo" scene. That does sound corny, but the scene is actually deeper than that, and the emotion is certainly earned and completely warranted.

People ask, why does Schindler drop the ring? What is the meaning of that? Listen to the dialog carefully... this is how I understand the deeper ending, after watching the movie many times over 25 years: Oskar Schindler's terrible regret begins when Itzhak Stern says "Whoever saves one life, saves the world entire". This hits Schindler hard enough that he drops the ring, because one person's life in particular comes to his mind. When the movie begins he puts on the gold lapel pin. At the end he takes it off. Those scenes are bookends. He removes the gold pin, stares at it and breaks down after he says: "This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it; at least one. He would have given me one, one more. One more person. A person, Stern. For this. I could have gotten... one more person and I didn't. And I didn't!" So from getting more out if he made more money, to getting ten out if he sold the car, to getting two out, or getting just one out if he used the gold pin as a bribe, he says the words for one person six times (count them). That person is the girl in the red coat, the reason why Schindler breaks down and exits the movie utterly distraught.

He can have regret about not saving her with a bribe, because he knows that the killing went on after the ghetto massacre. Just before he sees the girl dead, the screen shows this:


Department D orders Goeth to exhume and incinerate the bodies of more than 10,000 Jews killed at Plaszow and the Krakow Ghetto massacre.

So it's possible that the girl in red survived the ghetto massacre, and died later in or near the Plaszow labor camp. He recognizes the remote possibility that even his obscene gold pin with the swastika could have been used as a bribe to save her. It was close to his heart all along. The movie's official poster shows his subconscious imagination of saving of the girl in red, hand in hand. Earlier, when the woman comes to his office to ask him to save her parents, there's a reflection of a flame on the factory floor over his heart. The gold pin is right there next to it. His heart was burning to save the girl in red, whom he had seen earlier, but he didn't think of using the gold pin as a bribe until after it was too late.

If it isn't obvious that the climactic dialog in the climactic scene is about the girl in red, and the movie itself is about her, the last scene in the epilogue tells you she is. Liam Neeson, not Steven Spielberg, places two red roses on Oskar Schindler's grave. The two red roses stand for the two appearances of the girl in red. If it still isn't obvious, then the movie title could be changed from "Schindler's List", which is the how of the story, as the list is how hundreds of Jews were saved, to the more important why of the story, which is "The Girl in the Red Coat" and that should eliminate all doubt.

Disney Severs Ties With ‘Guardians Of The Galaxy’ Director James Gunn Over Old Offensive Tweets by josesimon09 in movies

[–]ohfrickme 2137 points2138 points  (0 children)

Honestly I scrub my Twitter every year or so not because I think anything is offensive but times change and so do my opinions.

Official Discussion: Hereditary [SPOILERS} by mi-16evilPaddington rulz ok in movies

[–]esoxluciusesox 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I thought so too, but her fathers name was Martin Leigh, his anagram is;

~ Malign Threi [threi is old saxon for 3].

Ellen Tapper Leigh anagram is;

~ I Peter, Hell Angel

Charlie Graham anagram is;

~ Hail Rage. March

if you add Paimon;

~ Hail Paimon! Rage, March

Peter Graham anagram is;

~ The Maga Perr (punch *MAGA* into google and read the urban dictionary term, it's not trump related, same for *PERR*,, it's very fitting for Peters character change)

Steven Graham anagram is;

~ He Grants Mave

Charles Leigh anagram is;

~ His Grace. Hell

if you add Paimon

~ His Grace Paimon. Hell

Why There Should Never, Ever Be a Sequel to 'The Truman Show' by freemindrdr8 in movies

[–]KayFeldersAlt 335 points336 points  (0 children)

10 reasons why people aren't talking about making a Truman Show. You will never guess number 11.

New picture of John Wick 3 by jokerbyreddit in movies

[–]Turk182 5129 points5130 points  (0 children)

You haven’t seen a nightmare until someone kills John Wicks night mare.

Aquaman: First close-up look at a massive sea dragon by Yakiiz in movies

[–]MoorMarch 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Honestly not really! We have a ton of super smart people that figured out a really fast and cheap way to get caustics on our CG stuff, and our comp artists can take that and run with it.

The hardest part is just the sheer amount of time and effort and manpower that goes into CGI heavy shows like this. Let’s take this concept example of the sea dragon and pretend we’re going to make a 3 second shot for the final movie. If we were going to make this shot for the film, we would need a model of the sea dragon and the rock behind him. These models need to be textured and placed into a CG scene based on the layout of the real life set. It’s safe to assume this shot would be based off of some kind of film, so that sea dragon and rock would need to be lit to match the filmed actor. The sea dragon needs to seem alive and moving, so it needs to be rigged and then animated. The filmed actor would need some kind of super awesome underwater flowing cape in the final shot, so we have to make a full digital double of the actor, match his CGI animation to the filmed actors movements, and make a simulated cape based off of that. Once you have all those it’s time to make some FX! Bubbles and marine snow seem like they would fit well here, so those need to be simulated based off of the layout and animation from the sea dragon, the actor, and the cape. Once you have all those parts you need to send it back to lighting and make sure everything matches and looks cool. Then it’s time to render! Rendering is when you make the computer calculate all the things in the scene and give you a final image. Every element in every frame needs to render, which quickly adds up. These elements can take anywhere from as short as 3 minutes to as long as 50 hours. There’s 24 frames per second, and every element needs to render for every single frame. This is where most of the money for CG goes, buying out render space on computers overseas that do the calculations for us so we can keep using our own desktop computers at work. Finally once you have all the renders, comp artists do their magic and stitch everything together and make it look awesome. They frequently work insane hours and are wizards and I’m honestly not sure how they do what they do in the time they’re given.

If you have any questions at all I’d be more than happy to talk about it, the process behind this stuff is super cool and I love telling people about it :)