Brittmoore Car Club said:
TCTTS said:
Brittmoore Car Club said:
TCTTS said:
Brittmoore Car Club said:
TCTTS, what exactly are YOUR rules for this forum. You say that you cannot criticize a movie you haven't seen, but that you CAN criticize it's creators, and even call names, without seeing it. But when I did that on a to-be-released Judd Apatow movie thread several years ago, it was not received very well. You actually very much lost your cool over someone bringing up what a hateful man Judd Apatow was.
You must have missed my direct response to you in the other thread...
Quote:
You're of course leaving out two crucial facts to this story...
1) It was a thread for a romantic comedy called Juliet, Naked, starring Chris O'Dowd, Rose Byrne, and Ethan Hawke. A romantic comedy that had absolutely nothing to do with politics, featuring no "woke" content of any kind, set in a seaside English town. Judd Apatow neither wrote or directed it, he merely produced it, and the thread was completely movie-focused until you showed up.
2) You didn't "simply bring up the fact that Judd Apatow literally hates people who voted for him." What you then did is went on a thread-derailing screed, attempting to convince everyone in the thread NOT to see the movie, simply due to Judd Apatow's involvement.
And THAT'S what I "lost my sh*t" over. We were having a perfectly pleasant discussion about a perfectly pleasant romantic comedy, when you suddenly showed up out of now were, encouraging people NOT to see it. Not because it was a bad movie. Not because it was a political movie. Not because you disagreed with it morally. But because Judd Apatow was a producer on it. That was it.
It was objectively insane behavior, and now here you are, with the gall to try and paint us as the unreasonable ones.
Which is sadly, and predictably, par for the course in this thread.
^ To answer your question, THIS is the kind of sh*t I can't stand. Not seeing a movie for yourself first, while b*tching about that movie's contents endlessly on a message board, to the point of actually telling people not to go see it.
Again, I never once b*tched about the contents of the Sound of Freedom movie itself, and I never once told people not to go see it (quite the opposite, in fact). All I did was point out Jim Caviezel's rhetoric in promotion the movie.
What some of you do is CLEARLY take it a step further than I ever have or did.
No, you called Tim Ballard a "lunatic". Why not just own up to it?
My favorite part of that thread though is when you acted like you were concerned for your life lol.
Re: Ballard, I've never not owned up that. I've said over and over and over that I think he's a good guy doing a good thing, but ALSO someone who exaggerates his stories, is politically obsessed, and yeah, might very well be a bit of a lunatic, depending on how deep down the QAnon rabbit hole he is. He's not as far down the rabbit hole as Caveizel, but it looks like he certainly buys into some of that nonsense, and if so, the "lunatic" label is apt. Both things can be true at once and I've made that exact point, using those exact words, numerous times. It's baffling to me that you think I'm avoiding it, across two threads now. Clearly, you don't read half my posts, and simply ignore everything else you don't agree with.
Ok cool, you just described most of Hollywood right there. So for future reference, it is fair game to call actors/directors/producers out for their super crazy leftist beliefs on threads about new movies they are making or starring in. I mean, they almost all have crazy ass beliefs and buy into "nonsense" from my perspective, and the perspective of most normal Americans who are not caught up in the hyper-left coastal ideological bubbles.
For the record, since I was a kid, I knew most of Hollywood was comprised of narcissistic liberal hypocrites. But aside from a few idiots like Susan Sarandon and Meryl Streep, Tim Robbins and Sean Penn, it was pretty much entertainment, without constant subtle or blatant injection of politics and political messaging. Our problem isn't people holding weird beliefs different from our own, which seems to be the problem you have with Tim Ballard and Jim Caveizel, it's the preachiness, the hypocrisy, and the abundance of both in todays entertainment industry.
I don't know how many more times I have to repeat this, but there's a difference between someone *holding* certain beliefs vs someone using the promotion of their movie to *spread* their beliefs.
I don't give a sh*t what Jim Caviezel's personal beliefs are. What I was merely point out was that his EXPRESSION of those beliefs DURING the promotion of the movie wasn't helping the movie's cause. It was, in fact, limiting the movie's audience.
Do I need to repeat that?
I don't care what movie stars believe personally.
Tom Cruise is a testament to that, in that I can't stand his religion, but as long as he's not using his movie to promote his religion, or vice versa, it's not going to affect me seeing his movies.
Same with Caviezel.
All I did was point out that Caviezel's QAnon rhetoric was A) turning away some on the left from seeing this movie, and B) is what led to so many headlines calling the movie "QAnon adjacent."
That's it.
And the second any "narcissistic liberal hypocrite" uses the promotion of
their movies to push a similarly batsh*t agenda - like, say, hypothetically, if Meryl Streep starts promoting irreversible gender-affirming procedures for five-year-olds during the promotion of her next movie in which a trans actor plays her grandchild - then I'll be right beside you in calling them out as well. Same goes for DiCaprio being Mr. Environmentalist while hypocritically tacking private jets all over the world and gallivanting on yachts. I've called him out before as well.
It's pretty simple, really.
