MCU's AVENGERS: DOOMSDAY directed by the Russo brothers (2026) 11 11

[VintageComics]

On 12/12/2023 at 1:32 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

I don't understand how you're conflating expressing an opinion based on something that you read into gossiping about someone. This isn't someone you know who works in your office, this is someone playing a character in a major motion picture that this thread topic subject is about. 

So you're saying the rules should be different for different people? 

On 12/12/2023 at 1:32 PM, Chip Cataldo said:

What if you're saying the same thing about Bill Cosby instead of Jonathon Majors? Then it's okay?

What is so difficult to understand? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is the only correct answer whether it's a family member, Satan or some anonymous person on the internet. 

On 12/12/2023 at 2:17 PM, D2 said:

I do agree, it is sad that people enjoy gossip so much. 

On that point alone, I think Jonathan Majors should be outright replaced because of the gossip surrounding him. As a respect to the art form and professionalism, he should step down while he sorts this thing out. 

You're proving my point.

Now replace Jonathan Majors with Johnny Depp. 

Someone should now be expected step down simply because a bunch of whiny people are talking about it all over the internet. Sounds about right for people today, and then they wonder why they can't have world peace?

People are quick to jump onto bandwagons until that bandwagon burns them.

Anyway, I'm not going to push the point any longer. I've established my points and people are free to be wrong if they choose to. Louder voices don't make an incorrect answer correct. 

 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:16 PM, VintageComics said:

So you're saying the rules should be different for different people? 

What is so difficult to understand? INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is the only correct answer whether it's a family member, Satan or some anonymous person on the internet. 

Well, I'm not saying that how it should be but life today definitely is different rules for different people.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with having an opinion on someone when you factually know nothing about them. I'm not saying that is or is not rational, but it does happen and that's life today.

[D2]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:16 PM, VintageComics said:

 

You're proving my point.

Now replace Jonathan Majors with Johnny Depp. 

Someone should now be expected step down simply because a bunch of whiny people are talking about it all over the internet. Sounds about right for people today, and then they wonder why they can't have world peace?

People are quick to jump onto bandwagons until that bandwagon burns them

It’s no different than anyone in the public eye and with power and authority. 

I’m not arguing the innocent until proven guilty, but I do believe these matters should be handled in private out of respect for everyone involved. 

Further to your point, this has no business being front and centre focus to a bunch of whiny bandwagoners that can only focus on the negative gossip.

It stands good reason for the art form to be removed from the actors. Isn’t that what they are always arguing? They want to be the character, I’m playing a character, see me as this character… well no one can do that when your personal life dominates conversation.

He needs to go, just like how Johnny Depp and Amber Heard needed to go.

If I wanted to see a circus, I’d go to cirque du soleil 

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:13 AM, D2 said:

It’s no different than anyone in the public eye and with power and authority. 

I’m not arguing the innocent until proven guilty, but I do believe these matters should be handled in private out of respect for everyone involved. 

Further to your point, this has no business being front and centre focus to a bunch of whiny bandwagoners that can only focus on the negative gossip.

It stands good reason for the art form to be removed from the actors. Isn’t that what they are always arguing? They want to be the character, I’m playing a character, see me as this character… well no one can do that when your personal life dominates conversation.

He needs to go, just like how Johnny Depp and Amber Heard needed to go.

If I wanted to see a circus, I’d go to cirque du soleil 

That's a great post, and I agree with everything you said now that I understand where you're coming from. 

I come from an older time and stuff like this back in the 70's when I was a kid didn't even blip on the radar of the audience. You'd get a mention or something in the news, but that was it. My parents wouldn't go on and on about it or seek it out afterward. 

Everyone complains about what the media is doing, while fully participating in what they complain about.

There's a dissonance there that's worth pointing out. Glad we could agree. 

[shadroch]

On 12/12/2023 at 9:38 AM, Mr Sneeze said:

Please - when convenient of course - provide us unknowing minions with an itinerary of pre approved topics and bullet points for the manner in which we should discuss them. For we forget at times how fortunate we are to have here on the boards someone who is - wait for it - previously and presently in a relationship, has children, has and has had a job, (not sure if I should capitalize this next one) has paid his (assuming this is your preferred pronoun) bills and - again, wait for it - has life experience, i.e. knows lots of people and has perhaps gone on adventures. I dare say, you may have even read a few books. A few, like a couple, like a long time ago. Studied at the university of Dunning, with a post doc at Kruger State. No known philosophical equal.

Amen

I'll wait for the movie.

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 12:48 PM, VintageComics said:

I come from an older time and stuff like this back in the 70's when I was a kid didn't even blip on the radar of the audience. You'd get a mention or something in the news, but that was it. My parents wouldn't go on and on about it or seek it out afterward. 

Just bleech your hair and call it done

[VintageComics]

On 12/13/2023 at 2:34 PM, Bosco685 said:

Just bleech your hair and call it done

I'm already there! 

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

It may be factual, but my statement goes towards the desire to discuss the personal lives of people with such relish. It's something I've always disliked. The media can destroy the lives of innocent people when this gossip happens - again, Depp vs Heard - the general audience was initially split and Depp was a marked man, portrayed as an allegedly abusive partner until the trail vindicated him.

Depp's reputation in Hollywood was already tarnished previous to the trial, but despite that - the audience wasn't 'split' prior to the trial. Depp had been a huge celebrity for decades and had many celebrities show their support for him. At least until some of text messages were released, embarrassing them. Public support for him was much higher than for Heard.

And anyone who actually followed that trial and came out of it thinking Depp WASN'T abusive is blind. He wasn't VINDICATED from anything other than the AMOUNT of abuse alleged and the money awarded. He lost his lawsuit against the Sun in the UK over the allegations printed and despite winning a judgment amount against Heard, also had a judgment awarded against HIM that he had to pay her.

He WAS abusive.

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

The allegations were so bad Hollywood dropped him before he was found to be innocent. This isn't concerning for anyone?

Depp hadn't made a big movie since working on the last Pirates of the Caribbean in 2015. His drug use, erratic behavior, and overall weirdness had made him a bit worrisome. And despite all of that he still worked in some capacity. 

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

That innocent people face consequences for things they didn't even do? Have we gone insane?

Innocent? He did many of the things brought up in the trial.

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

Would you like people talking about your personal life and judging you that way openly on the internet?

Happens every day, unfortunately.

For celebrities it's part of the price they pay for making the wealth that they do. 

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

It's the drive for people's need to judge before a fair trial and the insatiable need to know all the gory details before the trial that is the problem and it's all a psychological, social programming by social media, which drives people to crack-like addiction. 

It's been going on long before social media. It's been going on long before any electronic media. 

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

It's just not good for society, and it's not good for the individual people who like a crack addiction need that stimulation and I can't even believe there is a contingent of people defending this abhorrent behavior. 

Not sure who's 'defending' it, but it's been going on since books and newspapers were the only means of news. Someone has a trial, people discuss what they think. 

On 12/13/2023 at 12:54 AM, VintageComics said:

20 years ago, pre social media we used to mock papers like the National Enquirer that promoted this stuff. Now we love it and gobble it up. The word pathetic is apt. 

You've actually previously championed the Enquirer for having broken 'news stories before traditional news outlets have'. 

[Prince Namor]

On 12/12/2023 at 7:10 AM, jsilverjanet said:

i cannot stand anyone who does this

no excuses for this behavior and I'm sure this is not an isolated incident

most people who exhibit violent behavior repeat it over and over

But some would prefer to be angry at the 'gossip' and not the abusive behavior of two wealthy celebrities that CLEARLY have been abusive.

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 1:23 AM, VintageComics said:

That's a great attitude to have now, and I have the same attitude but it still doesn't excuse poor behavior.

Gossip is poor, inexcusable, historically poor behavior and always will remain so, regardless of how society twists it. 

Like presenting social media posts as news stories or 'facts'? Isn't that gossip as well?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/13/2023 at 3:16 AM, VintageComics said:

Louder voices don't make an incorrect answer correct. 

LOL

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 12:48 AM, VintageComics said:

I come from an older time and stuff like this back in the 70's when I was a kid didn't even blip on the radar of the audience. You'd get a mention or something in the news, but that was it. My parents wouldn't go on and on about it or seek it out afterward. 

John Lennon in 1966 made an offhand remark in a UK interview about how the public were more infatuated with the band (the Beatles) than with Jesus and that Christian faith was declining to the extent that it might be outlasted by rock music.

In the UK it didn't even register a blip.

Then it got reprinted in an American paper. 

People lost their minds. 

From wikipedia:

Lennon's comments incited protests and threats, particularly throughout the Bible Belt in the Southern United States. Some radio stations stopped playing Beatles songs, records were publicly burned, and press conferences were cancelled. The controversy coincided with the band's 1966 US tour and overshadowed press coverage of their newest album, Revolver. Lennon later repeatedly apologised and clarified at a series of press conferences that he was not comparing himself or the band to Christ.

 

No trial to explain himself. No Innocent until proven guilty. People just reacted.

It's been going on since we first started printing books and newspapers. 

 

 

Notes:

1. I'm not saying the UK press is less 'sensationalistic' than the US. Realistically it may be even MORE venomous. If people think the US is bad about this stuff they should check out Italy or Hong Kong (at least pre-1999). 

2. Lennon's actual quote. Stop making sense, it offends people!

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first – rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

3. Why do news sources print this stuff? To end someone's career? To make a point? Because they have an agenda?

No... generally speaking they do it because it SELLS. The masses flock to it. So who is the guilty one here?

[EastEnd1]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:59 PM, Prince Namor said:

John Lennon in 1966 made an offhand remark in a UK interview about how the public were more infatuated with the band (the Beatles) than with Jesus and that Christian faith was declining to the extent that it might be outlasted by rock music.

In the UK it didn't even register a blip.

Then it got reprinted in an American paper. 

People lost their minds. 

From wikipedia:

Lennon's comments incited protests and threats, particularly throughout the Bible Belt in the Southern United States. Some radio stations stopped playing Beatles songs, records were publicly burned, and press conferences were cancelled. The controversy coincided with the band's 1966 US tour and overshadowed press coverage of their newest album, Revolver. Lennon later repeatedly apologised and clarified at a series of press conferences that he was not comparing himself or the band to Christ.

 

No trial to explain himself. No Innocent until proven guilty. People just reacted.

 

This incident was actually a major contributing factor to The Beatles giving up on touring all together in 1966 to focus on their music in the studio.  The immediate result of that focused effort was their landmark Sgt Peppers album.

[Buzzetta]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:13 AM, D2 said:

It’s no different than anyone in the public eye and with power and authority. 

I’m not arguing the innocent until proven guilty, but I do believe these matters should be handled in private out of respect for everyone involved. 

Further to your point, this has no business being front and centre focus to a bunch of whiny bandwagoners that can only focus on the negative gossip.

It stands good reason for the art form to be removed from the actors. Isn’t that what they are always arguing? They want to be the character, I’m playing a character, see me as this character… well no one can do that when your personal life dominates conversation.

He needs to go, just like how Johnny Depp and Amber Heard needed to go.

If I wanted to see a circus, I’d go to cirque du soleil 

 

Agree but I believe the interest in Major's case is more than just fodder for those with popcorn.  With Depp and Heard, there was only the weight of the Harry Potter prequels hanging in the balance as well as whether or not Disney could squeeze one more Pirates movie out of a franchise that was already winding down.   

There is a major interest here because a multi billion dollar film franchise pointed to Jonathan Majors, then announced to the public that he was their guy who would be the main antagonist for that multi billion dollar franchise moving forward.  Majors would be the big bad that was supposed to capture the next few billion from the public. 

Given the weaker reception of this last round of Marvel movies, Marvel and their movie fans want to know what is going to happen.  With the Majors case, I believe there is more at stake here when it comes to the movie front.  

[EastEnd1]

On 12/13/2023 at 4:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

Depp's reputation in Hollywood was already tarnished previous to the trial, but despite that - the audience wasn't 'split' prior to the trial. Depp had been a huge celebrity for decades and had many celebrities show their support for him. At least until some of text messages were released, embarrassing them. Public support for him was much higher than for Heard.

And anyone who actually followed that trial and came out of it thinking Depp WASN'T abusive is blind. He wasn't VINDICATED from anything other than the AMOUNT of abuse alleged and the money awarded. He lost his lawsuit against the Sun in the UK over the allegations printed and despite winning a judgment amount against Heard, also had a judgment awarded against HIM that he had to pay her.

He WAS abusive.

 

I'd have to agree with you on Depp.  I caught a good deal of that trial and he was no angel.  At the end of it, I thought those two (Depp and Heard) were made for each other.

A better example of "innocent until proven guilty" would be the Duke lacrosse team... or Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).  Those two were horribly and wrongly excoriated by the media until shown to be innocent. 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by EastEnd1

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:56 PM, EastEnd1 said:

 

I'd have to agree with you on Depp.  I caught a good deal of that trial and he was no angel.  At the end of it, I thought those two (Depp and Heard) were made for each other.

A better example of "innocent until proven guilty" would be the Duke lacrosse team... or Richard Jewell (the man accused of the Centennial Olympic Park bombing).  Those two were horribly and wrongly excoriated by the media until shown to be innocent. 

They definitely both had issues. Addiction was more Depp's big problem. But those Heard videos and audios where she was purposefly spinning him up because she wanted to fight it out and he wanted to get away - which infuriated her even more. Come on. The real abuser and confrontational individual was very clear. And then her invite all those friends and family to live off of Depp to the point he didn't know who some of these people were. That was crazy!

[Bosco685]

Someone's brevity meter is broken again

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:10 PM, Bosco685 said:

Someone's brevity meter is broken again

?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/14/2023 at 6:09 AM, Bosco685 said:

where she was purposefly spinning him up because she wanted to fight it out and he wanted to get away - which infuriated her even more.

Court's generally don't take the position that some one 'spinning HIM up', leading to HIM hitting HER or physically roughing her up is the fault of HER.

It's sucks when someone smack .

When you HIT them in response to it or physically assault them? That's on you.

ESPECIALLY when it's a woman.

How could you even defend that?

Edited December 13, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Bosco685]

On 12/13/2023 at 6:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

Court's generally don't take the position that some one 'spinning HIM up', leading to HIM hitting HER or physically roughing her up is the fault of HER.

It's sucks when someone talks .

When you HIT them in response to it or physically assault them? That's on you.

ESPECIALLY when it's a woman.

How could you even defend that?

Right.