✨ Celebrity Leslie Jones

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
raymond said:
The government already controls plenty of things that businesses are and aren't allowed to do that normally aren't illegal, so there's already a precedent you can use for forcing businesses to adhere to the first amendment.
Click to expand...

The First Amendment doesn't apply to businesses, though. It applies to government entities and those working in concert with them. The entities that run businesses, whether they're people or corporations, have rights of their own, though, and those include the right to edit or otherwise control content that they produce.

Some businesses, known as common carriers, are generally prohibited from discriminating for reasons similar to those protected by the First Amendment. For instance, telephone companies generally can't refuse to give service without some compelling reason. That's part of the deal for the immensely favorable treatment such entities get from the government.

Anything that isn't at that infrastructural level, though, like Twitter, can kick you off for any reason or no reason.
 
Adamska said:
Or they stopped paying her to chimp, since they seem too incompetent to think that far ahead and so fucking exceptional they would probably do something that poorly thought out. Either that or her manager or whatever told her upfront this would utterly fuck her career and she went "Shit".
Click to expand...

Twitter's the worst thing to happen to celebrities. It basically enables them to impulsively destroy their career with honesty. It's what got Anthony Cumia fired.
 
Makes you wonder how many beloved celebs of days past are only still remembered fondly because Twitter didn't exist back in their heyday.
 
TowinKarz said:
Makes you wonder how many beloved celebs of days past are only still remembered fondly because Twitter didn't exist back in their heyday.
Click to expand...

I could see Marilyn Monroe as the Twitter and Tumblr queen of the 1950's. Marlon Brando, too.

This story is still hard to believe that it actually happened.
 
melty said:
I don't get what's gained by continuing to post racist pictures. Can't we just attack her professionalism and leave it at that? As far as I know she's not even responding to bait anymore
Click to expand...
There's kind of a culture clash between celebrities and normal people. Normal people live in a super bitchy world, where every aspect of yourself can be brutally criticized at any moment. In contrast, celebrities live in an artificial world where they're asspatted constantly. Most of the time, there's a thick layer of lubrication between celebrities and the public. Structures like public relations enable celebrities to live in their own little world and yet still talk to normal people frequently enough to give the public a taste of the celebrity in question.

Twitter (temporarily*) breached that lubrication in this situation.

The more aggressive people are to her, the more the normal people are able to land home their point to celebrities: you're just as much a person as all of us are, you are not exempt from the bitchy criticism we get every day.

This is not a moral argument. I'm not saying that this activity is right or wrong. I'm saying this is a natural response to the circumstances.

* I say "temporarily" because twitter's response to her haranguing was "lol let's ban people". Twitter is adapting to celebrities being uncomfortable online by censoring people. I think that's a bad move for twitter, but admittedly, I've disagreed with most of twitter's decisions for a long time.
 
TowinKarz said:
Makes you wonder how many beloved celebs of days past are only still remembered fondly because Twitter didn't exist back in their heyday.
Click to expand...

I agree completely with you, but I'd just like to point out that celebrities have always said and done stupid shit (and will continue to do both). I think with the rise of both social media and smartphone usage, it just seems like celebs make asses out of themselves more frequently than the ones of days past ever could've done, when in reality there's probably little to no actual increase in such behavior. It's just easier for that shit to go public nowadays.
 
Just to stick a fork in this topic because it's basically done, The Hollywood Reporter is now saying that the movie could end up losing more than $75 million. Sony has stopped confidently predicting a sequel. Instead, a studio rep said that Sony is actively pursuing an animated television series and an animated film based on the series.
 
Last edited:
Skelter Helter said:
Instead, a studio rep said that Sony is actively pursuing an animated television series and an animated film based on the series.
Click to expand...

with all the billions of dollars they've pissed away on ridiculous follies over the years, how the hell does sony even exist still? Their list of public failures just keeps growing and growing. For every hit product, they have had several massive blunders.
 
r00 said:
with all the billions of dollars they've pissed away on ridiculous follies over the years, how the hell does sony even exist still? Their list of public failures just keeps growing and growing. For every hit product, they have had several massive blunders.
Click to expand...

Q1 2016

"Game & Network Services" (aka Playstation) +427 million USD
"Imaging Products & Solutions" (still/video cameras) +73 million USD
"Home Entertainment & Sound" (TV's and other A/V) +197 million USD
"Music" (Music) +155 million USD
"Financial Services" (loans and stock options trading) +471 million USD

Overall, though, they're still a sinking ship (lost just over a billion USD in Q1). Kaz Hirai, as great of a CEO as he has been, has struggled to swing the Sony ship into better waters. The two biggest losers are the Semiconductor business and the Pictures business - semiconductors losing nearly a billion dollars this quarter on its own, and Pictures (their movies division) losing $103 million USD.

Semiconductors are an R&D business that they fell too far behind in and will have to auction it off to save anything. Sony Pictures decided to put everything they had behind Ghostbusters and nearly matched their quarterly loss with the films production.

TL;DR: the future of Sony is basically to become Samsung.
 
r00 said:
with all the billions of dollars they've pissed away on ridiculous follies over the years, how the hell does sony even exist still? Their list of public failures just keeps growing and growing. For every hit product, they have had several massive blunders.
Click to expand...

Well, they have James Bond, which counts for a lot (if I remember correctly, Skyfall cleared $1 billion worldwide and Spectre did something like $800 million). And even though The Amazing Spider-Man series and its spinoffs were canceled, the movies actually made money. (Just not enough money for Sony to be interested in continuing the series and spinning off other movies in the Spider-Man "cinematic universe".)

Still, it has been an open secret for a while now that Sony's film division is in trouble. Ghostbusters was Sony's only entry into the summer blockbuster sweepstakes, and executives were hoping that it would not only revitalize the franchise, but that it would help to launch a "cinematic universe" that Sony could call its own.

Sony's not going anywhere, but expect an additional round of reorganizations this year. They can't fire Amy Pascal, because they already did that, but expect them to clean house a few months from now.
 
LordKaT said:
Q1 2016

"Game & Network Services" (aka Playstation) +427 million USD
"Imaging Products & Solutions" (still/video cameras) +73 million USD
"Home Entertainment & Sound" (TV's and other A/V) +197 million USD
"Music" (Music) +155 million USD
"Financial Services" (loans and stock options trading) +471 million USD

Overall, though, they're still a sinking ship (lost just over a billion USD in Q1). Kaz Hirai, as great of a CEO as he has been, has struggled to swing the Sony ship into better waters. The two biggest losers are the Semiconductor business and the Pictures business - semiconductors losing nearly a billion dollars this quarter on its own, and Pictures (their movies division) losing $103 million USD.

Semiconductors are an R&D business that they fell too far behind in and will have to auction it off to save anything. Sony Pictures decided to put everything they had behind Ghostbusters and nearly matched their quarterly loss with the films production.

TL;DR: the future of Sony is basically to become Samsung.
Click to expand...
Considering Samsung's strategy has basically made them one of the biggest conglomerates this side of the Standard Oil split-off, that would indeed be wise. They already sold off their VAIO business. The saddest thing about the Pictures division is that you do get some nuggets of gold from them once in a while and you know they have great potential, but their executives and producers decide to focus so much on the intricacies of American and Hollywood politics to think long-term.

IIRC they managed to turn around their Mobile division (formerly Sony Ericsson)
 
I vaguely remember "Sony Vaio", but without Googling, can't remember WHAT it was, which maybe hints to why they sold it off.....
 
TowinKarz said:
I vaguely remember "Sony Vaio", but without Googling, can't remember WHAT it was, which maybe hints to why they sold it off.....
Click to expand...
That was their laptop line.
I ran a couple of them into the ground. Worked well enough. Had much better sound than most laptops I've owned.
 
They also were so desperate to get them to sell, they used to put them in their movies as blatant product placement. Jack and Jill had Adam Sandler using one for his "job" in the movie, which was also conveniently product placements. Honestly, they should just either purge their outfit and retry, or just walk away from making movies and use the money saved to bolster their more marginal outfits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom