Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jack Thompson Will Be Featured In BBC Film 'Grand Theft Auto'

Posted by Soulskill on from the enjoy-your-legacy-buddy dept.

New submitter requerdanos writes: Former attorney and professional troll Jack Thompson is set to become a major motion picture figure, played by Bill Paxton, in the upcoming film Grand Theft Auto. According to Cinema Blend, "Paxton is in line to play Jack Thompson. A Miami lawyer, Thompson came into the public eye by frequently blasting Grand Theft Auto, creator Rockstar Games, and video game violence in general. Before that, he was known for attacking media companies who promoted both hip hop and sex. In 2008, allegations of professional misconduct, including harassment, defamation, intimidation, and false statements led to Thompson being disbarred."

77 of 118 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm pretty sure that they will portray Thompson in a positive light... or maybe just in the headlights of a car trying to run him down

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:Well... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Honestly, how ARE they going to introduce him in a positive or even neutral manner?

      I'm picturing him talking with a text box appearing beneath his picture: "Jack Thompson, Lawyer (former), publicity hound (failed), censor (failed), moral crusader (shunned by other moral crusaders), and expert on making (inaccurate) statements about videogames"?

      BBC: "Mr. Thompson, you... have opinions on the grand theft auto series, don't you? You can accurately say that much at least, right? Can you tell us what they are without it somehow backfiring on you, pathetically and hilariously?"

    2. Re:Well... by steelfood · · Score: 1

      In the movie, he's going to sue the lead characters for being violent.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    3. Re:Well... by Cito · · Score: 1

      Who will portray Niko Bellic?

    4. Re:Well... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      they're going to show him for what he was,

      a guy trolled into giving the game loads of publicity while failing to sue the game.

      I mean, it's well known that the reason why GTA 1 got so much press for it's violence etc even before release was that the game promoter made the "negative" press happen.

      (it was a good game for a few weekends too, gta1 that is. I had not read any press about it before playing)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Well... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I don't recall him saying anything about GTA I. He only started talking about them when they went 3D and got popular, which is GTA III.

  2. We lucked out by gnaarly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jack Thompson was a man. That was the #1 winning point.

    1. Re:We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having briefly interfaced with the entity known as Jack Thompson, I can absolutely confirm that it was not a man. It is a Crazy Fucker.

    2. Re:We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let's all remember the good old days when people laughed at censors from the radical right.

      These days everybody either cowers from the censors from the radical left (developers) or cheers them on (media). It's apparently the progressive thing to do to dress old bullshit in new gowns.

    3. Re:We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's why he failed at linking video games to violence, but Anita was successful in linking video games to sexism without any research to back up their statements.

    4. Re:We lucked out by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but what took Thompson down was not online harrassment, twitter trolling, or IRL threats of violence/rape/etc - it was clear-headed dissection of his poor arguments and the legal sanctions against his own atrocious behavior. In short, he was given enough rope to show himself up as the idiotic demagogue he is/was. Twitter trolling, sending pizzas to his house, and other Anon-style pranks may have made people feel better, but they probably had no positive impact in the court of public opinion. At the very least, that sort of behavior wasn't going to convince anyone that didn't already hate him.

      On the other hand, what about Anita Sarkeesian? Can we really say she's been responded to in any sort of rational way? No, what the public sees is a bunch of juvenile attempts to shout down a critic. We're not even talking about how inappropriate rape or death threats are, we're talking about how counterproductive it is to let the conversation change over to that, rather than pointing out how she's wrong, her criticisms are overblown and uninformed, etc. Hell, I would never have even heard of her if it wasn't for the threats and harassment, because THAT'S the story the media keyed in on.

      That's why her accusations stuck, not because anyone was evaluating them on any merits, but because a bunch of trolls turned it into a conversation about her being attacked, which caused people to take her side. I'm sure it helped that she was in the role of "feminist critic under attack" rather than "overly litigious lawyer" and thus much more sympathetic in nature, but the ultimate point is that the Gamergate trolls' behavior isn't just objectionable on its own merits, it's also proved rather counterproductive.

    5. Re: We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're joking, right? Her videos have been absolutely demolished by anyone who spends more than 3 seconds thinking about them. Some of her examples have been entirely debunked - she simply made up facts to back her argument.

      Of course, you probably never heard of any of this because of the incredibly persuasive response to those debunking her bullshit: misogyny!

    6. Re:We lucked out by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      People who at rationally generally get treated rationally. People who foam at the mouth and freak out at everything/everyone that disagrees with them get treated as the nutcases they are.

      Anita is not a rational actor, therefore is not treated as such. Anyone who calls up someone's boss to get them fired for daring to disagree on a public forum is not a rational person.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re: We lucked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the point though.

      The story has ceased to be about her videos, and her arguments, which themselves got no traction at all that I can see. What has put her in the spotlight is the harassment and threats.

    8. Re:We lucked out by DRMShill · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of truth to that. I do have to wonder if Jack Thompson got the same ratio of trolls to intelligent counter arguements that Sarkeesian got. "White older male lawyer getting a lot of grief from gamers" just doesn't move as many clicks as "feminist getting attacked by neckboards". So it's kind of hard to say. I'm sure Thompson got his fair share of death threats, probably not rape threats so much.

    9. Re: We lucked out by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, he's absolutely right. It doesn't matter if her examples have been debunked or not, or if they've been completely made up. What people believe is what's important, not objective reality, and people's beliefs are shaped by things like media coverage on the harassment she received. So basically, the harassment made everyone take her side, even though she may be (according to you) wrong. If she hadn't been harassed that way, and the critics focused only on the facts, this probably wouldn't have turned out this way.

    10. Re: We lucked out by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      You're joking, right? Her videos have been absolutely demolished by anyone who spends more than 3 seconds thinking about them. Some of her examples have been entirely debunked - she simply made up facts to back her argument.

      Of course, you probably never heard of any of this because of the incredibly persuasive response to those debunking her bullshit: misogyny!

      You should try reading posts you reply to rather than spewing out a kneejerk "SJW-feminazi" response.

      OP was pointing out that if the original response had been to debate and defeat her arguments, that would have been sufficient to put the whole thing to bed. Instead, it was used as an excuse to push out piles of unpleasant misogynistic crap which actually reinforced her argument that a lot of games/gamers are misogynistic.

      It's analogous to gamers responding to Jack Thompson's claim that games make people violent by going out and shooting him.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re: We lucked out by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      Care to point me towards these debunkings? I've been looking for counter-arguments for FF's videos and found nothing.

      This was one of the relatively sane ones: [url=http://metaleater.com/video-games/feature/why-feminist-frequency-almost-made-me-quit-writing-about-video-games-part-2]aaa[/url]

      --
      The map is not the territory.
    12. Re: We lucked out by a_mari_usque_ad_mare · · Score: 1

      OK, so ignore the above as I accidentally submitted and have forgotten how to edit anything.

      The link I posted is the best rebutal I could find, but its still complete nonsense. It misrepresents what FF's videos are saying and attacks these strawmen arguments.

      The one good point is that the media theories used were developed for TV and video games are a different medium. This is a solid objection, but is pointing out a weakness and not refuting anything.

      As for the strawmen:

      - "FF says censor X."
      Nope, they're just pointing out X is common. They don't even say X is bad, they leave that judgement to the viewer.

      -"FF bullies people."
      Anita Sarkeesian doesn't personally bully anyone. If people who enjoy her videos do, that's beyond her control, and also has nothing to do with her arguments.

      -"FF says video games cause sexism".
      Again, nope, she says they are part of culture and help reinforce exisiting stereotypes, a much more reasonable and nuanced position.

      -"FF says these games are bad."
      AS goes out of her way to say she enjoys some of these games and you do to, its not a binary thing. You can criticize some things about the game while enjoying the game as a whole.

      -"FF says I'm bad."
      Nothing in these videos is directed at anyone personally. See above, if she were saying this she would be condemning herself.

      --
      The map is not the territory.
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by tepples · · Score: 1

    Does this film have anything to do with a 1977 film directed by Ron Howard? If not, are we shaping up for a fight between the BBC and Fox (successor to the 1977 film's distributor) over confusion in the market?

    1. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      The summary is using the term "film" loosely - the BBC show is a documentary, not a movie.

    2. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Do they not? Who says? I've seen plenty of documentaries that contain reenactments of certain things that happened.

    3. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Documentaries don't use actors to play the people they're about. The people are in them.

      So any documentary about the Civil War or WW2 or other historical events only use people who lived through that time? They can never reenact the events to visually show what happened? Or do they bring the people back from the dead. Zombies help make documentaries much more interesting though they sacrifice accuracy a bit when Zombie Lincoln tries to eat the cameraman's brains.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by ckatko · · Score: 1

      You realize there are tons of movies with the same name, right?

      http://www.andsoitbeginsfilms....

    5. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Are the titles on the page you cite reused under license, or does there actually exist no trademark-like exclusive right in a film's title?

    6. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You mean Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter wasn't a documentary!?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by tepples · · Score: 1

      Sometimes the MPAA/DGA will say a distinction should be made, sometimes not.

      Which explains Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire to avoid a similarly titled film directed by Paul McGuigan. (I'm glad we didn't get Precious: Based on the novel The Lord of the Rings by Tolkien.) On the other hand, there are two Nine movies released in 2009: one with Sackboy and the other a musical directed by Rob Marshall.

    8. Re:Similarly named Ron Howard film from 1977 by C0R1D4N · · Score: 1

      I was thinking it was more along the lines of Pirates of Silicon Valley or The Social Network. Probably going to be loosely based off Jacked: The Outlaw Story of Grand Theft Auto

  5. Two ways this could play out by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

    Either they're going to give him an extremely sympathetic portrayal and the film is going to be some kind of "think of the children" moral crusade against games.

    Or else they're going to get sued by him. Assuming there's anywhere left that he's still allowed to file suit.

    Both equally plausible, I suspect.

    1. Re:Two ways this could play out by jythie · · Score: 1

      I do not get the impression that being allowed or not has any real impact on him threatening to sue.

  6. Game Over man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Game Over!

    1. Re:Game Over man! by show+me+altoids · · Score: 1

      Came for the Hudson reference, leaving satisfied.

      --
      I feel sorry for people that don't drink, because when they get up in the morning, that's as good as they're gonna feel
  7. Why Paxton? by yorgo · · Score: 1

    Wasn't a steaming pile of excrement available to play JT?

    1. Re:Why Paxton? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      The steaming pile of excrement just passed the bar exam and is trying to take JT's old job tilting at windmills.

    2. Re:Why Paxton? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      who else has been killed by a
      Terminator, a Predator, and an Alien.

      Lance Henriksen has also been killed by a Terminator, an Alien and a Predator.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  8. Re:Can't wait! by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

    Bill Paxton was amazing in Independence Day!

    Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton...

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  9. Disbarring by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    The concept of mandatory bars and disbarring seems, ironically, to be unamerican. I can see having bar membership as an optional accreditation. We have ASE certified mechanic, or CCNA IT guys. Actually disallowing someone from doing a job, though, merely because someone else says they're unqualified seems incongruent with basic capitalism and free market principles.

    --
    https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    1. Re:Disbarring by Holi · · Score: 1

      I agree, no why don't you climb up and this table and we'll get that pesky appendix out of you. I watched a youtube video last night so we are all set.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Disbarring by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what happens in the majority of states that don't mandate bar membership. Attorneys watch videos and then we force people to hire them.

      Good comparison otherwise, though.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    3. Re:Disbarring by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      The key is to remember who makes those rules: politicians, i.e., lawyers themselves. It's the ultimate regulatory capture.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:Disbarring by jratcliffe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      First off, a majority of states DO mandate membership in the state bar association (32 out of 50). Secondly, even in the states that don't, you can't just hang out your shingle and practice law - you need to be admitted to the bar by passing the state bar exam and being admitted to practice law in that state.

      Law is a profession where an incompetent or corrupt practitioner can cause customers tremendous (and not readily correctable) harm. Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others, is by no means unreasonable. We do require licenses for far too many things in this country, but this isn't one of them - if your unlicensed DC tour guide screws up, you end up getting bad info on when the Library of Congress was built, but if your lawyer screws up, you can end up losing your home, or going to jail, etc.

    5. Re:Disbarring by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Law is a profession where an incompetent or corrupt practitioner can cause customers tremendous (and not readily correctable) harm.

      So is teaching. So is banking. So is policing. So is being President.

      Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others

      How does it do that? And how does it do that in ways that the law does not?

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    6. Re:Disbarring by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      So is teaching. So is banking. So is policing. So is being President.

      And we require licenses for all of these, with the exception of the last.

      Having a licensing process that ensures that practitioners are at least marginally competent, and a way to prevent the corrupt from robbing others

      How does it do that? And how does it do that in ways that the law does not?

      Upfront, through the bar exam, it shows that the candidate has at least a decent grasp of the law. On an ongoing basis, it provides a review process for activity that might not be illegal per se, but poorly serves the client.

    7. Re:Disbarring by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      What? There's no license to be a teacher, or a banker, or a police officer. At least not where I live. There are job requirements, but not licenses. If you're going to conflate job requirements with licenses, then everything requires a license.

      Look, I'm not saying that I would ever hire a lawyer that wasn't certified in some way, I'm just saying that it seems unnecessary to mandate it. If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha), and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own. I am, in fact, in favor of regulation of industries, but the bar seems like a relic of a bygone era when only "gentlemen" were permitted to do certain things. It may be more meritocratic and less political these days, at least as far as getting admitted -- though law firms themselves are nothing if not political -- but it still reeks of elitism. And it's certainly done nothing to prevent incestuous relationships between public defenders and DAs and judges.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    8. Re:Disbarring by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      The concept of mandatory bars and disbarring seems, ironically, to be unamerican. I can see having bar membership as an optional accreditation. We have ASE certified mechanic, or CCNA IT guys. Actually disallowing someone from doing a job, though, merely because someone else says they're unqualified seems incongruent with basic capitalism and free market principles.

      Only if you distill the reason down to a very simplistic level. Remember that professional organizations are made up of peers. Yes there are politics involved; politics are always involved with groups. However, if someone's peers says that they are unqualified, that should carry some weight. In the case of Thompson, he wasn't merely disbarred because of his qualifications. He was disbarred for abusing the legal process for petty, vindictive, harassing, and arguably insane actions.

      Unlike other professions lawyers have to oppose each other. It's part of the job. Thompson seemed to take it personally every time a lawyer opposed him in any way by doing their jobs. He took it personally every time a judge ruled against him in any way. To him everyone was on a crusade to get him.

      For example, in the Devin Moore (Strickland) case he was thrown off the case because he seemingly lied in his pro hac vice application. The question in the application asked whether Thompson has ever been in a disbarment or disciplinary proceeding. Thompson's reply was "None but please see attached letter." His letter only mentioned a complaint made against him. In fact, Thompson had been in a disciplinary proceeding and took a guilty plea. The judge found Thompson's explanation of this major discrepancy unpersuasive and revoked his license throwing him off the case. For 18 months after that, the judge received documents and complaints 3-5 times a day almost daily (even after the case had been resolved in the court). He also accused the judge of "fixing" cases and witness tampering. In the same case, he sent a letter to the opposing lawyer who was female: "You disgrace us as lawyers. Shame on you. Shame on you as a woman as well."

      In another example, Thompson accused Al Cardenas of Tew Cardenas: "More specifically, Mr. Cardenas personally and his firm collectively have protected the distribution of pornographic material to children and helped target me and my family. . ." Al Cardenas had no prior relationship or dealing with Thompson. His only connection to Thompson was that his law firm shared a client with another lawyer who sued Thompson for defamation. The convoluted saga was that Thompson had sent complaints to Beasley Broadcasting Corp, LLC about their radio programming. Beasley retained Norm Kent to address complaints by Thompson. In the course of his dealings with Thompson, Kent filed a suit for defamation and won $50,000. Beasley had the law firm of Tew Cardenas on retainer for other legal matters. Al Cardenas was a managing partner of Tew Cardenas but never interacted with Beasley. That was his only connection to Thompson.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    9. Re:Disbarring by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I don't want to defend Thompson at all. I do think that if people are committing criminal acts, like fraud, or intimidation, or harassment, or contempt, then we already have laws to deal with that, and we should use those laws. We don't need an extrajudicial process -- the judicial system should eat its own dog food.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    10. Re:Disbarring by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      "There's no license to be a teacher, or a banker, or a police officer."

      Teacher licensing is required in every state that I know of. https://www.teach.org/teaching...

      Bankers definitely require licenses, at least those who deal with client money in any significant way (look up FINRA, for example).

      For police officers, you have to be vetted and hired by a government agency (which is essentially getting a license) and typically take a an exam, you can't just declare yourself a police officer.

      "If the bar was effective at keeping bad lawyers out, then we wouldn't have bad lawyers (ha)"

      So, because the bar isn't perfect at keeping bad lawyers out, it's worthless? That's like saying that since seatbelts won't save you in all accidents, it's not worth wearing them.

      "and if we believe in a free market (which, the last time I checked, lawyers charge money), then the market should be able to sort it out on its own"

      We can believe in a free market but also believe in a regulated market, particularly for things where it's typically difficult for an ordinary consumer to judge value (hiring an attorney isn't like buying an apple), and where the implications of a bad "product" can be very very serious.

      Regulatory capture is a real issue, and there are lots of areas where it's a major problem (Institute for Justice has done a lot of work on this), i.e. interior decorators, to take one example, but lawyers (like doctors) are something where a state licensing process does make a lot of sense.*

      *It's worth noting that, even in those professions, I disagree in some cases with the degree of regulation involved, i.e. doctors limiting what nurses and physician's assistants can do, or lawyers trying to prevent "document preparers" from handling very typical, standardized situations. If you have a house, life insurance, and $50k in the bank, your spouse is dead, your two kids are grown, and you want to leave everything to those two kids equally, you don't need a lawyer to do your will.

    11. Re:Disbarring by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I don't want to defend Thompson at all. I do think that if people are committing criminal acts, like fraud, or intimidation, or harassment, or contempt, then we already have laws to deal with that, and we should use those laws. We don't need an extrajudicial process -- the judicial system should eat its own dog food.

      And what laws exist for the behaviors that Thompson did? Thompson did not threaten anyone physically so he cannot be arrested. He just falsely accused everyone of crimes because they opposed him in any real or imagined. The law has no course other than defamation. The bar has rules of conduct and he was disbarred.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    12. Re:Disbarring by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Do you live in Somalia or something? I'm trying to imagine a place you could live where your statement could be true and that's all I'm coming up with at the moment. That sounds like some sort of libertarian hellscape.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    13. Re:Disbarring by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The concept of mandatory bars and disbarring seems, ironically, to be unamerican. I can see having bar membership as an optional accreditation. We have ASE certified mechanic, or CCNA IT guys. Actually disallowing someone from doing a job, though, merely because someone else says they're unqualified seems incongruent with basic capitalism and free market principles.

      And sending someone to prison for committing murder is an even more serious interference with their right to make money.

      I would like to think you were joking, but there is no evidence for that, so I will instead assume you're a fucking idiot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Disbarring by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't want to defend Thompson at all. I do think that if people are committing criminal acts, like fraud, or intimidation, or harassment, or contempt, then we already have laws to deal with that, and we should use those laws. We don't need an extrajudicial process -- the judicial system should eat its own dog food.

      So I suppose you would be against schools screening out paedophiles as teachers, since they can always be convicted of rape after the event?

      Also, what is the libertarian defence of having a legal system at all? It is the basis for all government which you seem to hate so much.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  10. Feature-length documentaries by tepples · · Score: 1

    That depends in part on the running time they're shooting for. To me, a feature-length (70 to 210 minute) documentary is a movie. This means Fahrenheit 9/11 and Sicko and Capitalism: A Love Story and Super Size Me and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold are movies.

    1. Re:Feature-length documentaries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The BBC makes TV programmes, not movies. "Movies" is a distinctly North Americanism label, no one in the UK uses it.

  11. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He was reincarnated in the form of Anita S.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  12. Wow... by NecroPuppy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Has it really been 7 years since he was disbarred?

    I remember celebrating when he got the boot, but I didn't think it had really been that long ago.

    --
    I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
  13. Re:Can't wait! by Adriax · · Score: 1

    Will smith did all those parts?
    DAMN, that guy's more talented than I thought. And here I thought Eddie Murphy held the crown for fewest co-stars in a single movie.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  14. Re:Can't wait! by Kemanorel · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill Paxton was amazing in Independence Day!

    Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton...

    Aflek was the BOMB in Phantoms!

    --
    Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
  15. Re:Can't wait! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Bill Paxton was amazing in Independence Day!

    Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton...

    Today I learned that if one actor stars in a film then no one else starred in it.

  16. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But he's not dead yet.

    Also, Anita doesn't really take after him, otherwise all of the shits who send her rape and death threats would be dealing with pointless and irrelevant lawsuits that had no hope of succeeding.

  17. Re:Can't wait! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Hey, he's technically correct, and that's the best kind of correct.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  18. Re:Can't wait! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Well, today you can also learn that Bill Paxton is not credited with being in Independence Day, because he was not in it.

    So, it is a completely true statement to say "Will Smith was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton..."

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  19. Re:Can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here's your obligatory: "Whoosh".

    I'll explain the joke: people seem to get confused between Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. (And apparently so did you; Paxton was NOT in Independence Day.)

    The OP wrote Bill Paxton, and given the length of the post, I assume the mistake was intentional. The standard response is, of course, that "Bill Pullman was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton". The poster you quoted then took the standard response and twisted it around by correctly naming an actor other than Pullman who was in Independence Day.

    It's of course no longer funny since I had to explain it, but it seemed necessary.

  20. This gen's version of "Warning: Parental Advisory" by Deagol · · Score: 1

    I look forward to a dramatized reenactment of events I witnessed as they unfolded. Makes for entertaining history.

    I'd love to see similar movies about Hillary Rosen (RIAA attack dog) and Jack Valenti (MPAA attack dog) from an earlier era of internet culture.

    --
    Method of processing duck feet
  21. Re:Can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't feel bad, AC. You didn't ruin the joke. It wasn't funny to begin with.

  22. Re:This gen's version of "Warning: Parental Adviso by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    This Film Is Not Yet Rated

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  23. Re:Can't wait! by chilenexus · · Score: 1

    Bill Pullman.

    Bill Paxton was amazing in Weird Science.
    ----
    How CAN the laboring man find time for self-culture?

  24. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by ckatko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anita isn't the problem. It's all of the morons who take her seriously. Why? Because people want to believe that we live in a world where all women are oppressed. And once you subscribe to that narrative, you're going to read anything that anyone says that supports that ideology of victimization.

    And news companies know their audience is a bunch of suckers that will react to "oh no, poor cute princesses are being excluded?!" and be outraged, which makes them quite a bit of readership money.

    This is not rocket science. It's yellow journalism. It's money. The news didn't care about ethics when we went into Iraq, or when we send the innocent Central Park Five black kids to jail for a rape they didn't commit. All that matters, is sensationalism to generate money.

    And the people that believe it are just as guilty as the news corporations that exploit them.

  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Re:Can't wait! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    Here's your obligatory: "Whoosh".

    I'll explain the joke: people seem to get confused between Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. (And apparently so did you; Paxton was NOT in Independence Day.)

    The OP wrote Bill Paxton, and given the length of the post, I assume the mistake was intentional. The standard response is, of course, that "Bill Pullman was in Independence Day, not Bill Paxton". The poster you quoted then took the standard response and twisted it around by correctly naming an actor other than Pullman who was in Independence Day.

    It's of course no longer funny since I had to explain it, but it seemed necessary.

    I think you missed my continuation of the theme, or was it too subtle?

  27. Re:Can't wait! by jo_ham · · Score: 1

    I think you missed my sarcasm.

    I was continuing the riff, you know, because Bill Paxton was not in ID4 and Will Smith was, thus proving the point that Will Smith clearly played all the...

    Never mind.

    I'll put a giant "this is a joke" disclaimer next time.

  28. Well, it also stars Daniel Radcliffe by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

    He does have some past experience dealing with trolls.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  29. Re:Can't wait! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Well, that's why we have Poe's Law.

    Weeding out the funny-stupid from the actual-stupid can be a full time job, so people don't bother. ;-)

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  30. Re:Nooooooo! Not Bill Paxton! by Snufu · · Score: 1

    Unsavory, villainous, disreputable roles (e.g. Richard III, Lady Macbeth, Iago) are highly coveted by serious actors and the results are often gripping, fascinating, illuminating and entertaining. Heroes are boring.

  31. Re:Kick sexists out of OpenSource? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    If there's one thing more pathetic than an internet tough guy, it's an internet rapist.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  32. Re:Jack Thompson is a piece of shit by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    Ah yes, it's all a conspiracy of the liberal media. Thanks for identifying yourself as a clueless right wing chucklefuck.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  33. Re:Kick sexists out of OpenSource? by Cito · · Score: 1

    I'm not an internet rapist

    I'm a real vengeance rapist.

    I make irreversible hallway scene look like a spa retreat