DCEU: Killer Clowns from Gotham City

[sifth]

1 hour ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Then Mamoa is lying too. Also, Mamoa will in fact be playing Frosty the Snowman in a Johns/Berg production.  Again, this isn't just about Ray Fisher.

Fisher is putting himself out there in a way that will likely do serious damage to his career. He's also not simply alleging "he heard something second hand about Joss". Read the article again.  He's demanding an investigation and it involves more than just Whedon.  You don't do that unless you have receipts.

Fisher as much as dared Whedon, Johns, etc to sue him for libel during his Justice Con appearance. That was two months ago. Of course, a libel suit would result in a formal (public) investigation, which is exactly what Fisher has been demanding this whole time.

Yeah, this.

Notice how Momo didn't tell us anything either, just that "bad stuff happened"

I'm a firm believer of innocent until proven guilty, but in this case Fisher isn't even telling us what the crime is in the first place. It's sort of why I view this whole thing as a joke. Tell the public what happened and take it to court if in fact Whedon did do something illegal. If not and it was just a crapy work experience, tell us that as well. Whedon does have a reputation of being a jerk in the work place, so I can see him getting several of his former employees to vent out on him and even hate working with him.

Finally Fisher is already a proven liar, just look back to San Diego Comic Con from 2017, where he talks about how Whedon is such a great guy and his version of the film is amazing. 3 years later and suddenly Whedon is the Anti Christ. Which one is it and what did he actually do?

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

40 minutes ago, sifth said:

Notice how Momo didn't tell us anything either, just that "bad stuff happened"

I'm a firm believer of innocent until proven guilty, but in this case Fisher isn't even telling us what the crime is in the first place. It's sort of why I view this whole thing as a joke. Tell the public what happened and take it to court if in fact Whedon did do something illegal. If not and it was just a crapy work experience, tell us that as well. Whedon does have a reputation of being a jerk in the work place, so I can see him getting several of his former employees to vent out on him and even hate working with him.

Finally Fisher is already a proven liar, just look back to San Diego Comic Con from 2017, where he talks about how Whedon is such a great guy and his version of the film is amazing. 3 years later and suddenly Whedon is the Anti Christ. Which one is it and what did he actually do?

 

According to the article, thr cast were basically forced to say good stuff about Whedon when promoting the film. None of the cast have contrsdicted Fisher; Momoa is openly backing him.

 

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

32 minutes ago, sifth said:

Notice how Momo didn't tell us anything either, just that "bad stuff happened"

Wow. You mean two Actors are saying some shady shit went down? Gee, sounds like Warner Media should look into this.

32 minutes ago, sifth said:

I'm a firm believer of innocent until proven guilty, but in this case Fisher isn't even telling us what the crime is in the first place. It's sort of why I view this whole thing as a joke. Tell the public what happened and take it to court if in fact Whedon did do something illegal. If not and it was just a crapy work experience, tell us that as well. Whedon does have a reputation to be a jerk in the work place, so I can see him getting several of his former employees to vent out on him and even hate working with him.

Show me where Fisher has accused Whedon of doing anything illegal.  Behavior that goes against a specific workplace code of conduct isn't necessarily illegal. Also, Fisher would be an idiot to spill all the tea in the court of public opinion outside the framework of a formal investigation. Then it becomes a game of he-said, he said and nothing happens.  It also provides no protection for others who might come forward. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a shorthand for a methodology, not a belief system or an epistemology.  It means the position is agnosticism with the burden of proof on the one making the positive claim.  That means no presumption of guilt (including being guilty of lying, which you throw around casually), until the facts come out.

32 minutes ago, sifth said:

Finally Fisher is already a proven liar, just look back to San Diego Comic Con from 2017, where he talks about how Whedon is such a great guy and his version of the film is amazing. 3 years later and suddenly Whedon is the Anti Christ. Which one is it and what did he actually do? 

Circular argument not worthy of a response.

[sifth]

29 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Wow. You mean two Actors are saying some shady shit went down? Gee, sounds like Warner Media should look into this.

Show me where Fisher has accused Whedon of doing anything illegal.  Behavior that goes against a specific workplace code of conduct isn't necessarily illegal. Also, Fisher would be an idiot to spill all the tea in the court of public opinion outside the framework of a formal investigation. Then it becomes a game of he-said, he said and nothing happens.  It also provides no protection for others who might come forward. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a shorthand for a methodology, not a belief system or an epistemology.  It means the position is agnosticism with the burden of proof on the one making the positive claim.  That means no presumption of guilt (including being guilty of lying, which you throw around casually), until the facts come out.

Circular argument not worthy of a response.

So basically just blindly believe anyone, whenever they say "something bad happened", but give you no details on what it is. Sound logic if I ever heard it. Excuse me, for wanting some actual evidence before I besmirch someones name. I don't believe in blind accusations, but apparently you do.  If you wish to view Fisher saying "something bad happened" as irrefutable evidence, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to agree with it.

Protection from what? Something that's still bad, yet not a crime? I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say here.

Also don't try to hand wave the fact that Fisher is a proven liar, because he very much is one. If you're going to ignore facts, we're done talking about this subject.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

36 minutes ago, sifth said:

So basically just blindly believe anyone, whenever they say "something bad happened", but give you no details on what it is. Sound logic...

You could have stopped right there.

I don't know what happened. I don't know the degree of involvement from Whedon, Johns, Berg et al. I also don't know that Ray Fisher is a liar. This isn't complicated.

But If that's seriously how you interpreted my last post, then by all means stop. But some people need the last word so be my guest.

Edit: you never answered my previous question: Is Mamoa in the Frosty movie or isn't he? If he isn't, that means someone at WB is a proven liar, doesn't it?

[sifth]

4 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

You could have stopped right there.

I don't know what happened. I don't know the degree of involvement from Whedon, Johns, Berg et al. I also don't know that Ray Fisher is a liar. This isn't complicated.

But If that's seriously how you interpreted my last post, then by all means stop. But some people need the last word so be my guest.

I’m fine with agreeing to disagree and you’re right, this whole thing is very complicated. I can agree with you on that much.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

5 hours ago, sifth said:

I’m fine with agreeing to disagree and you’re right, this whole thing is very complicated. I can agree with you on that much.

It is.

[polishgenius]

10 hours ago, sifth said:

Also don't try to hand wave the fact that Fisher is a proven liar, because he very much is one. If you're going to ignore facts, we're done talking about this subject.

You're just gonna sit there and ignore that the whole point of this accusation is that pressure was put on the actors to make and promote Whedon's version of the film? Like you're sitting here all smug like you're doing something clever pointing out that Fisher contradicted himself when the entire thing started by him retracting the statement- ie acknowledging that what he said the first time wasn't true. Yeah well done you noticed big claps.

[sifth]

3 hours ago, polishgenius said:

You're just gonna sit there and ignore that the whole point of this accusation is that pressure was put on the actors to make and promote Whedon's version of the film? Like you're sitting here all smug like you're doing something clever pointing out that Fisher contradicted himself when the entire thing started by him retracting the statement- ie acknowledging that what he said the first time wasn't true. Yeah well done you noticed big claps.

Sorry, but when I catch someone publicly lying, I'm less likely to trust one of their stories, when they aren't providing any proof; let alone telling us what actually happened. This is one of the main reasons I hate people like Trump, who publicly says lies and never provides any proof to back them.

Let's just agree to disagree on this, because we clearly have two very different views.

[polishgenius]

9 minutes ago, sifth said:

Let's just agree to disagree on this,

 

 

Nah let's not. Third time in this topic you've tried to end the argument with 'let's just not talk about it anymore' when your blatant double standards and hypocrisy and need to have the last word get called out.

And again, you didn't catch him. It wasn't some clever piece of detective work. He told you. And deadlines and others have already given you several reasons why he might not be making specific accusations at this time, but you're ignoring them. And yes, in time it might prove out that there was no substance and he was either lying or misinterpreting things that happened, but that doesn't make you right right now and it won't then no matter how clever that would make you feel.

You're also pointedly ignoring that, as HoI pointed out, there's no argument that the film got whiter in the edits and reshoots. Whether (1) it was a deliberatly racist decision and (2) whether Joss Whedon was involved in this part are two things that remain to be seen.

Trying to draw a line between Fisher and Trump was neat though. Nice topical bit of bad-faith argument there.





It is worth noting, for those approaching the story with an interest in actually finding out what went on, that the Forbes article no longer has the quote about Whedon digitally altering the colouring. Presumably because 'I heard from someone else' was hearsay too far and Whedon's representative had a direct response to that accusation at least (also now in the article).

[sifth]

1 hour ago, polishgenius said:

 

 

Nah let's not.

Just posting to say I ignored every word you wrote past this line, for your inability to end this like a mature adult, by giving me a wall of text. If you wish to support a proven liar without proof that's cool, but I require something more then "something bad happened, please believe me this time". It really is as simple as that. Feel free to reply if you want to get the last word in with another wall of text or whatever.

[mormont]

I think it's reasonable to point out that the characterisation of Fisher as a 'proven liar' is a stretch at best, mendacious and self-serving at worst, and using that to dismiss his every allegation and write him off as a person just doesn't really chime very well with the claimed principle of not judging people without evidence. That's not a maturity issue.

[sifth]

33 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

but suggesting sifth is allowed to carry on the argument but I can't engage back because he said so is just... come on now, how does that work? How is he being the mature one in that scenario?
 

I was trying to end an argument, not carry on one; since we were clearly getting nowhere. Instead you tried to stir up a hornet's nest, by wall of texting me in an aggressive manner to start the argument anew. You could of literally said "Fine, but I don't agree with anything you wrote" and I would have been alright with that and left it as is. Instead I'm going to assume I was read the riot act by the wall of text you sent me and @Rhom's reaction to it.

[red snow]

19 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Cyborg's part wasn't just reduced, he was supposedly the the center of the film.

The most extreme example of this is Adrien Brody in the thin red line.  He shot in Australia for six months and did a whole press thing with a GQ article and red carpet interviews and all that.  He believed he was the star of the film.  He wasn't aware that Malik likes to shoot a shitload of footage and find the film in the edit. Where he ends up is often a lot different from where he starts. Brody didn't know until he saw the film at the premiere.  Ouch.

I remember when Man Of Steel news was coming out and there were a few ripples surrounding the casting of Lawrence Fishburne as Perry White and gender swapping Jenny Olson.  There is a rationale beyond just wanting better representation.  Those characters first appeared in the early 1940's. At a time when office environments across the United States would have been almost overwhelmingly male and entirely white.  If you're retelling that story in a contemporary context, of course you're going to have more diversity.  That's just reality.

Given cyborg's connection to the mother box it would make sense that his role should be central.

I didn't even realise there was a Jenny Olsen in the film!

[polishgenius]

42 minutes ago, sifth said:

the wall of text

 

You keep using this phrase. It really wasn't that long.
 

42 minutes ago, sifth said:

I was trying to end an argument,

Yeah you see I don't really believe you. Or rather I do believe you wanted to end the argument, I just don't believe your benign intentions of not wanting to cause more of a ruck as you did so. Like I said I think just wanted to have the last word.

But let's agree to disagree.
 

20 minutes ago, red snow said:

I didn't even realise there was a Jenny Olsen in the film!

It was the woman the one guy kept flirting with and who was trapped in the rubble in the finale.

 

[Derfel Cadarn]

7 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

 

You keep using this phrase. It really wasn't that long.
 

Yeah you see I don't really believe you. Or rather I do believe you wanted to end the argument, I just don't believe your benign intentions of not wanting to cause more of a ruck as you did so. Like I said I think just wanted to have the last word.

But let's agree to disagree.
 

It was the woman the one guy kept flirting with and who was trapped in the rubble in the finale.

 

The CIA guy posing as Lois’ photographet killed at the start of BvS is called Jimmy Olsen in the extended version.

I rewlly like the extended cut; makes much more sense

[sifth]

17 minutes ago, polishgenius said:

Yeah you see I don't really believe you. Or rather I do believe you wanted to end the argument, I just don't believe your benign intentions of not wanting to cause more of a ruck as you did so. Like I said I think just wanted to have the last word.

But let's agree to disagree.

I'm honestly fine with you or anyone having the last word, I was just finished talking about this subject and felt like we were going in circles. If/when Fisher provides some proof I'm willing to reevaluate my stance, but for the time being it is what it is and talking about it like this is getting us nowhere. Also if you want proof of my ability to end a debate in a mature manner, just look at how I replied to @Deadlines? What Deadlines?, when he told me he was done with this conversation. I didn't reply reading him the riot act, about how wrong he was in several paragraphs, I simply respected his decision and politely ended things. Anyway, I'm done with this topic for now, get the last word in or don't, I really don't care anymore.

[polishgenius]

11 minutes ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

The CIA guy posing as Lois’ photographet killed at the start of BvS is called Jimmy Olsen in the extended version.

 

I haven't seen that, since they only released it in blu-ray. Which is annoying.

I have heard it's much better but that's one development I don't like. I'm all for messing with the formula to some extent but making Jimmy Olsen a sneak and a spy feels like just trying a bit too hard for dat edge to me.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

2 hours ago, polishgenius said:

 

I haven't seen that, since they only released it in blu-ray. Which is annoying.

I have heard it's much better but that's one development I don't like. I'm all for messing with the formula to some extent but making Jimmy Olsen a sneak and a spy feels like just trying a bit too hard for dat edge to me.

The difference between the theatrical and ultimate cut is night and day. Like literally "night and day". The overall color palette is brighter because the bulk of the scenes that were removed were daytime scenes, with the bulk of those focusing on Clark Kent. I think you can stream it.

I'm willing to allow that an undercover agent isn't actually giving his real name when he's undercover... unless he's James Bond. 

I really wasn't bothered by it. Jimmy Olson has never been much of a character in any of the films. He's there to provide exposition, say,"Golly" a lot, and fall from great heights so he can be saved by Superman.  The pearl clutching that went on over that scene seemed excessive to me.

[Deadlines? What Deadlines?]

22 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

According to the article, thr cast were basically forced to say good stuff about Whedon when promoting the film. None of the cast have contrsdicted Fisher; Momoa is openly backing him.

Not intending to stoke the flames on this, but go back and watch the clip from comic con where Fisher makes that statement.  There are two people in the frame; Mamoa and Fisher.  I'm no body language expert, but that scene doesn't exactly scream "enthusiasm" to me.