Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Alec Baldwin

Brooklyn 3.0

By Brooklyn 3.0,
in Huddle Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

cookinbrak Grand Master

cookinbrak

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

While he might not have pulled the trigger, he did admit to pulling back the hammer on the gun while working with Hutchins to frame the scene they were rehearsing.

There's something in this, too.He said he was not even pointing it towards her, but she wanted to be able to see him cock the gun. So he turned towards her. The very worst view of cocking the gun.

 And he could easily have fired without touching the trigger. If you pull the hammer back and let go, you fired the gun. You just didn't cock it.

  • Pie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doyle Collaborator

Doyle

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Brooklyn 3.0 said:

I love how PhillyB tries to debate with intelligence some of the time, but then results to childish insults the rest of the time. Takes any credibility he may have away.

He’s just a condescending little sh!t.  I lost all respect for him a long time ago.  

  • Pie 1
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted

I just have to say, I'm very surprised that someone who is very much a creation of an industry that glorifies gun violence while at that same time rarely bypassing an opportunity to lecture the peasant public about gun violence and gun control would ultimately end up involved in a shooting incident on set and then accept absolutely zero blame while directing all blame at anyone other than himself. I mean, that's a very on brand stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Happy Panther Grand Master

Happy Panther

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I just have to say, I'm very surprised that someone who is very much a creation of an industry that glorifies gun violence while at that same time rarely bypassing an opportunity to lecture the peasant public about gun violence and gun control would ultimately end up involved in a shooting incident on set and then accept absolutely zero blame while directing all blame at anyone other than himself. I mean, that's a very on brand stance.

Baldwin or Philly B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I just have to say, I'm very surprised that someone who is very much a creation of an industry that glorifies gun violence while at that same time rarely bypassing an opportunity to lecture the peasant public about gun violence and gun control would ultimately end up involved in a shooting incident on set and then accept absolutely zero blame while directing all blame at anyone other than himself. I mean, that's a very on brand stance.

alec baldwin being a hypocrite (he is, and there's a lot of irony in it) is totally different than the assertion that putting guns in movies is hypocritical if you are pro gun control.

is caraveggio a hypocrite for supposedly being anti-murder but then painting the beheading of st. john the baptist?

is rob reiner a hypocrite for thinking kids should resolve conflicts peacefully but featuring kids in fistfights in stand by me?

do you see how ridiculous this gets when you frame depiction as action? it's foundationally dumb. and you know it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LinvilleGorge Grand Master

LinvilleGorge

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

alec baldwin being a hypocrite (he is, and there's a lot of irony in it) is totally different than the assertion that putting guns in movies is hypocritical if you are pro gun control.

is caraveggio a hypocrite for supposedly being anti-murder but then painting the beheading of st. john the baptist?

is rob reiner a hypocrite for thinking kids should resolve conflicts peacefully but featuring kids in fistfights in stand by me?

do you see how ridiculous this gets when you frame depiction as action? it's foundationally dumb. and you know it 

Not simply putting guns in movies. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about movies that glorify gun violence and there's a lot of them. I don't think you get to make movies like say a John Wick for instance and then also turn around and get on a soapbox and lecture the public about the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillyB Grand Master

PhillyB

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Not simply putting guns in movies. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking specifically about movies that glorify gun violence and there's a lot of them. I don't think you get to make movies like say a John Wick for instance and then also turn around and get on a soapbox and lecture the public about the dangers of guns and the need for more gun control.

john wick is dystopian lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      This 1000%.  Hey who wants to sign with the guy that couldn't even get his client the guaranteed contract of a 3rd round pick?  Lmao
    • tukafan21
      Wild Idea.. Trade for Shemar Stewart

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • Dave Gettleman's Shorts
      TIME TO SPECULATE

      By Dave Gettleman's Shorts · Posted

      adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
×
×
  • Create New...