Mel Gibson dropped from $500m film after protests from fellow actors

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:10 PM GMT
    Mel Gibson has been dropped from a $500 million blockbuster film following protests from some of the cast and crew.

    It is good to see someone has taken a stand against this bigoted piece of shit.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8082531/Mel-Gibson-dropped-from-500m-film-after-protests-from-fellow-actors.html
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Oct 23, 2010 2:20 PM GMT
    i've always found it ironic that a man who had no problem showing off an attractive body and glutes, who had such a huge gay following (at least in his younger days) could be such a bigot and rail out against those who supported (past tense) his "career". icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:22 PM GMT
    Nobody likes you, Mel.

    Nobody likes you.

    Ha ha.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:31 PM GMT
    Artists oftentimes have been eccentric, im- or a- moral, sick, addicted, violent, and just different. History doesn't typically hold that against their art.

    Is being against someone because he or she is a bigot its own kind of bigotry?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:36 PM GMT
    singinnc saidArtists oftentimes have been eccentric, im- or a- moral, sick, addicted, violent, and just different. History doesn't typically hold that against their art.

    Is being against someone because he or she is a bigot its own kind of bigotry?


    Are you claiming that people should embrace bigots? Or that Gibson doesn't have to be judged on his record of outrageous statements just because he happened at one point to be really good looking and somewhat talented?

    A bigot is someone who judges others based on immutable characteristics that they can't help.

    Gibson is judged based on his considered opinions. And found wanting by many people. That's not bigotry.

    Artists aren't better than others. They can and should be held to account for their actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:40 PM GMT
    On second thoughts, perhaps 'bigoted piece of shit' was a little strong

    How about, 'hateful sack of shit'?
  • RSportsguy

    Posts: 1925

    Oct 23, 2010 2:53 PM GMT
    I would be shocked if Hangover 2 has a $500 million dollar budget!! icon_eek.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19138

    Oct 23, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    RSportsguy saidI would be shocked if Hangover 2 has a $500 million dollar budget!! icon_eek.gif







    That has to be a mistake. Why on earth would the budget be $500 million? I agree, Mel Gibson should count his blessings. I thought the first one had it's moments, but highly over-rated. Say what you want about Mel Gibson, but as a talented Oscar-winning (actor-writer-director-producer) he's way above appearing in something like a sequel to "The Hangover"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 2:57 PM GMT
    LOVALOT saidim surprised that people fail to see the obvious mistake here... the hangover, or hangover 2, are in a sentence with the words $500 million dollars.. now i dunno about u, but am i the only one that sees something terribly wrong with that?


    You're right. The budget for The Hangover 2 is £60m.

    Worldwide grosses for The Hangover were $460m. Perhaps they are hoping The Hangover 2 will gross $500 and that is the figure the Telegraph used.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Oct 23, 2010 3:00 PM GMT
    LOVALOT saidim surprised that people fail to see the obvious mistake here... the hangover, or hangover 2, are in a sentence with the words $500 million dollars.. now i dunno about u, but am i the only one that sees something terribly wrong with that?


    You beat me to it. There's something a little off about the sequel costing that much.
  • acousticpunk

    Posts: 76

    Oct 23, 2010 3:09 PM GMT
    I don't know if any of you have spent time in Vegas... but it's not exactly cheap. If a film is interfering with a casino's income, the film may be liable for loss of revenue... which in most cases is waived by the casinos as it passes as publicity, but with an antic-filled film like The Hangover, I imagine costs racked up pretty quickly in Sin City.

    $500m sounds about right when people come in to The Bank and leave with $500,000 bar tabs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 3:32 PM GMT
    Gibson only had a brief cameo, and wouldn't have interacted with most of the principles. I really doubt it was cast & crew pressure.

    Rather, I think the producers didn't want him associated with the movie, for whatever their own reasons are. He was likely approached quite some time ago, as these things are done, maybe even before his latest media flap last year.

    But deleting his cameo gets them some press, and that's what movie producers always want. Give the movie some buzz, get the name out there, make people aware of it.

    Personally I find Gibson repulsive, but that is irrelevant to why the film producers did this. I think you can be assured it was about box office & profit. Use that as the starting point for your speculations.
  • RSportsguy

    Posts: 1925

    Oct 23, 2010 3:36 PM GMT
    acousticpunk saidI don't know if any of you have spent time in Vegas... but it's not exactly cheap. If a film is interfering with a casino's income, the film may be liable for loss of revenue... which in most cases is waived by the casinos as it passes as publicity, but with an antic-filled film like The Hangover, I imagine costs racked up pretty quickly in Sin City.

    $500m sounds about right when people come in to The Bank and leave with $500,000 bar tabs.


    I read that the movie is suppose to be shot in Thailand.
  • RSportsguy

    Posts: 1925

    Oct 23, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    Mil8 said
    LOVALOT saidim surprised that people fail to see the obvious mistake here... the hangover, or hangover 2, are in a sentence with the words $500 million dollars.. now i dunno about u, but am i the only one that sees something terribly wrong with that?


    You're right. The budget for The Hangover 2 is £60m.

    Worldwide grosses for The Hangover were $460m. Perhaps they are hoping The Hangover 2 will gross $500 and that is the figure the Telegraph used.


    This is more logical. I think if the movie got the same type of buzz as the first one, then a $500 million gross box office plus sales figure would be an accurate goal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 4:05 PM GMT
    LOVALOT said
    Mil8 said
    LOVALOT saidim surprised that people fail to see the obvious mistake here... the hangover, or hangover 2, are in a sentence with the words $500 million dollars.. now i dunno about u, but am i the only one that sees something terribly wrong with that?


    You're right. The budget for The Hangover 2 is £60m.

    Worldwide grosses for The Hangover were $460m. Perhaps they are hoping The Hangover 2 will gross $500 and that is the figure the Telegraph used.


    u must've not seen the hangover 1.. what i meant to imply was.................... that it sucked.


    Ah right. No, I haven't seen it. It never ceases to amaze me how people will part with good money to see bad films. Isn't that what Rotten Tomatoes is for? Apparently the director of Hangover 1 took a percentage, rather than a fee and ended up with £50m. It was a very good film for him!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 5:08 PM GMT
    The only redeeming thing about The Hangover was Ken Jeong. I don't think I laughed at anything else in the movie.

    But Mel. Hmmm. I haven't liked anything he was in since Mad Max.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11525

    Oct 23, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidGibson only had a brief cameo, and wouldn't have interacted with most of the principles. I really doubt it was cast & crew pressure.

    Rather, I think the producers didn't want him associated with the movie, for whatever their own reasons are. He was likely approached quite some time ago, as these things are done, maybe even before his latest media flap last year.

    But deleting his cameo gets them some press, and that's what movie producers always want. Give the movie some buzz, get the name out there, make people aware of it.

    Personally I find Gibson repulsive, but that is irrelevant to why the film producers did this. I think you can be assured it was about box office & profit. Use that as the starting point for your speculations.



    yes, what the old hollywood saying "there's no such thing as bad publicity" icon_exclaim.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 6:50 PM GMT
    Google Fatty Arbuckle

    singinnc saidArtists oftentimes have been eccentric, im- or a- moral, sick, addicted, violent, and just different. History doesn't typically hold that against their art.

    Is being against someone because he or she is a bigot its own kind of bigotry?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 6:52 PM GMT
    I LOVE Mel Gibson. He is a fantastic actor, director, artist.

    I don't care about his personal life or beliefs. I love his art. Always have. Always will. I'm not gonna jump on a bandwagon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2010 8:20 PM GMT
    NNJfitandbi said
    singinnc saidArtists oftentimes have been eccentric, im- or a- moral, sick, addicted, violent, and just different. History doesn't typically hold that against their art.

    Is being against someone because he or she is a bigot its own kind of bigotry?

    Are you claiming that people should embrace bigots? Or that Gibson doesn't have to be judged on his record of outrageous statements just because he happened at one point to be really good looking and somewhat talented?

    A bigot is someone who judges others based on immutable characteristics that they can't help.


    Actually, I just asked a question. I was using bigot in the following sense:
    n.
    One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2010 10:07 AM GMT
    UrsaMajor saidGoogle Fatty Arbuckle

    singinnc saidArtists oftentimes have been eccentric, im- or a- moral, sick, addicted, violent, and just different. History doesn't typically hold that against their art.

    Is being against someone because he or she is a bigot its own kind of bigotry?


    I'm not sure what comparison you're drawing here. From everything I've ever read or heard, Arbuckle was innocent and very much a victim of unfortunate circumstances.

    Even after he was not only acquitted but the jury apologized to him for all that he had suffered, his career had been destroyed but through no fault of his own.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 25, 2010 10:29 AM GMT
    There had been rumblings out in Hollywood about Gibson's homophobia for years
    and him and his "people" knew how to hide it well
    But it's really taken a turn for the worse
    and it seems like there is probably some mental illness and/or chemical influence going on

    ... a true case of hate eating you up from the inside
    He's turned himself into a pariah