Everyone loses to the Squid until a rando shows up and punches it. He goes bald after, hence why LeBron and his ever receeding hairline is offended.

O, live bullets used. Close but no cigar.

I’m no expert, but I’m also pretty sure you can just put blanks in a real gun, and that’d be called a prop gun.

The issue wasn’t that the movie was bad. The movie was quite good! Especially because of Goodman!

No shit. This was clearly a good script Bad Robot picked up and then rebranded as Cloverfield. The only reference to Cloverfield in the movie is a random driveby shot of a mailbox. The monsters aren’t the same. Nothing is the same.

That CGI insert probably took 10 people 4 whole days each to insert. It’s a lot cheaper to re-use a real gun and just hope someone doesn’t fuck up and reload it with a real bullet. Not every movie has Disney money!

Well, they sure as shit probably will now.

I have no idea if this is correct, but I’d venture to guess it’s usually not an actor who’s requesting to use a real gun with blanks. Sounds more like an industry too lazy to invest in props with force-feedback, or probably a million other solutions.

You’d think at this point they’d make or use prop guns that can’t reasonably kill people.

Yes, props are intended to be live ammunition weapons and when the prop people give you a gun on a film set you’re supposed to assume it is a live weapon especially when you’re told to shoot it at a target in a scene

Always good when a website republishes allegations and doesn’t try to verify them in any capacity, and waits for another website to get a response from the accused.

and The Avengers would have worked with just about any competent mainstream director (then there’s Age of Ultron just simply not working).

Or Netflix sees the numbers and does not care. They take a million shots and cancel very well received shows due to some unknown reason.

There are moments when I think Hughes and Barsanti don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t bother to give the slightest of efforts in learning any of it but write about it anyway. (it’s every time they post)

We’re aware, but the article presents it like this was an immoral firing, and also hints that it’s transphobic/racist/misogynst (trans! black! pregnant! employee! fired! all things pertinent to the leaking of internal documents!).

As I recall, she had a 1 minute cameo. That sounds more like “random Marvel fatigue due to it just being like any other set with the same actors” and not “my character was very underwhelming because it was a woman who was underserved just like the 1 second glimpse of everyone at the end of Endgame which was so much…

Weird to call it FX and Hulu’s documentary and not mention the New York Times, which like, made it.

In the article itself, it talks about how artists are selling NFTs themselves.

It is an emerging topic that deserves analysis. Their one liners putting it off as a joke as am addition to any story is not it.

Ya, I definitely shifted the goalpost from “it seems hacky” to “it’d be frowned upon by better writers and editors.” Shame on me!