Jim Carrey Withdraws Support from Kick-Ass 2

Thwip!

In what many people seem to be deeming a marketing move Jim Carrey has withdrawn his support from Kick-Ass 2, saying he can't support the amount of violence that occurs in the movie in the wake of Sandy Hook




Now Carrey himself is known for advocacy of gun control so I can see his point on this, but I worry that something like this will cause that same old argument that "movies, comics and video games are the main causes of real-life violence" which is incredibly flawed. Surely, as well, a movie like Kick-Ass could be seen as actually parodying violence, given it's over the top nature. I felt from the first film and having read the comics for that and the sequel that Millar always strove to show more the consequences of the violence, what with Dave ending up in hospital and Big Daddy dying etc.

Thoughts folks?

Also here's Millar's response
Millar's response to Carrey

pixelburp

Huh; and I wonder if he feels that strongly about it, will he donate his fee to charity? Pfffh, computer says "yeah right"

This is a publicity stunt through and through; everyone knows what to expect from the Kick Ass sequel, it and its associated cartoon violence are a known quantity; trying to drum up feigned shock over its violence shows a lack of vision and nous from Carrey (or whoever advised him to take this stance, to be exact)

(This should probably be merged with the main Kick Ass 2 thread btw)

syklops

What does "remove my support" actually mean? In what way is the world going to be different after this?

Bacchus

Bizarre.
1. If he is that concerned about gun violence, why do the movie at all!?
2. Sadly, there are regular incidents of high profile shootings in the states. He says he finished filming before Sandy Hook but has since had a change of heart. What about all the other shootings? A hypocrite trying to save face?
3. Why wait 6 months AFTER the incident (2 months before the release date of the movie) to make such comments? Publicity stunt?

I doubt it's really a publicity stunt... that'd be sick. Most likely, he's realized he's made a huge mistake given his political views and is looking for an excuse to get ahead of whatever backlash he sees is coming his way.

pixelburp

syklops wrote: »

What does "remove my support" actually mean? In what way is the world going to be different after this?

It probably means he'll refuse to do the standard promotional junkets expected of the cast during a run-up towards a new release. So think of all those puff-piece interviews you see on Exposé or similarly pointless 'movie' sections off telly, or the inevitable Late Late Show / Graham Norton appearance.

Corkfeen

I'm inclined to believe it's not a publicity stunt. It could be very damaging for his reputation in the long run. He's actually one of my favourite actors but i'm rather disappointed that he couldn't have reached this conclusion prior to accepting the paycheck. I don't agree with his views in the slightest.

I always thought PR was a mandatory part of actor's contracts though?

syklops

More screen time for Lyndsy Fonseca.

Win/win

Thwip!

syklops wrote: »

What does "remove my support" actually mean? In what way is the world going to be different after this?

Means he won't do anything to promote the movie, interviews, junkets etc. Not sure if they're still allowed to use any clips with him in future trailers and previews. That might be iffy ground

He's apparently already pulled out of one appearance at a charity superhero orchestra event
http://www.herocomicshop.com/blog/143/

TheIrishGrover

He finished shooting before Sandy Hook? Oh well that's OK since that was the first ever shooting at an American school and he wasn't to know this kind of stuff happened..........

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but this just smacks of self-promotion. If you really don't want to associate yourself with the movie then quietly refuse to do publicity and maybe donate your fee to related charities * or, even better, don't make the movie in the first place!

Something tells me we'll suddenly see more traction on that on-again-off-again "Dumb and Dumber" sequel: that potential financiers were a bit cagey about giving the money given the potential furore and coming out on the high-ground will give him a nice family-friendly clean bill of health.


* I'd say he will come out and donate his fee. Nice to hand in a tax-deductable charity donation to secure a larger paycheck.

Nervous Wreck

syklops wrote: »

What does "remove my support" actually mean?

I had to remove my support from a barrier recently. Just couldn't stand behind it.

TheIrishGrover

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I had to remove my support from a barrier recently. Just couldn't stand behind it.

Phony Scott

Looking forward to the film, even if I wasn't blown away by the first one. Jim Carrey being involved (or not!) is very interesting it has to be said.

Sad Professor

This is a complete non-story. Carrey isn't denouncing violence in films or criticising the film itself. All he's saying is that he doesn't feel comfortable promoting the film after Sandy Hook, so he's not going to. I wouldn't feel comfortable either given that the actors are undoubtedly going to come under fire for the film's violent content. It's his choice and I'm sure he's prepared to accept any potential contractual implications.

Bacchus

Sad Professor wrote: »

This is a complete non-story. Carrey isn't denouncing violence in films or criticising the film itself. All he's saying is that he doesn't feel comfortable promoting the film after Sandy Hook, so he's not going to. I wouldn't feel comfortable either given that the actors are undoubtedly going to come under fire for the film's violent content. It's his choice and I'm sure he's prepared to accept any potential contractual implications.

But he felt comfortable filming it despite Columbine, Virginia Tech, The Dark Knight shootings and the countless other shootings in the states? Smacks of hypocrisy. He knew what kind of film he was making and he made it. Now for some reason he wants to distance himself from the violence in the movie. As some had said, he would have been better off deciding this privately and not make a fuss by going on twitter about it.

Also, people can try and argue that he's genuine IF he donates all his earnings to charity but 1. there are tax breaks associated with that, so it's win-win for Carey and 2. Carey has been off the map for the past 5-6 years. This movie is a massive vehicle for him and could possibly relaunch his career. Now, thanks to this twitter business, he's going to be the main attraction. Clever move really, clean up your image and make yourself the talking point of an upcoming violent blockbuster movie at the same time.

Bacchus

Bacchus wrote: »

But he felt comfortable filming it despite Columbine, Virginia Tech, The Dark Knight shootings and the countless other shootings in the states? Smacks of hypocrisy. He knew what kind of film he was making and he made it. Now for some reason he wants to distance himself from the violence in the movie. As some had said, he would have been better off deciding this privately and not make a fuss by going on twitter about it.

Also, people can try and argue that he's genuine IF he donates all his earnings to charity but 1. there are tax breaks associated with that, so it's win-win for Carey and 2. Carey has been off the map for the past 5-6 years. This movie is a massive vehicle for him and could possibly relaunch his career. Now, thanks to this twitter business, he's going to be the main attraction. Clever move really, clean up your image and make yourself the talking point of an upcoming violent blockbuster movie at the same time.

I think that given the recent coverage of violence in cinema Carrey is just saving himself the hassle of having to try and defend the film to every journalist in search of headlines. Look at what happened with Django Unchained, Tarantino and the cast were repeatedly attacked by journalists who demanded that they defend the violence in the film.

America was a very different place when Kick Ass 2 was being filmed and as such it's quite easy to forgive Carrey for his change of heart. He said that he's not ashamed of the film and it seems clear that he didn't made the decision lightly. As forit being a calculated marketing /self promotion move, well it may very well be just that but hopefully it will lead to some debate and have people take a closer look at how violence is portrayed fir entertainment. I have no issue with excessive violence but have in recent time found myself bored by most major US shows that use rape and murderer for thrills.

expectationlost

he's on being an activist bent but its hard to say he has good judgement considering he's an anti-vaxxer

bradolf pittler

JP Liz V1

He should donate his entire salary from the movie to charity like the victims and families of the Sandy Hook shooting imo

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

He should donate his entire salary from the movie to charity like the victims and families of the Sandy Hook shooting imo

Why the hell should he? I really hate it when people think that a celebrity should give away their earnings because of a personnel comment they make. For all you know, Carrey may have already given money to funds set up after Sandy Hook. Can you explain why it is you think he should donate his money?

S.M.B.

He will more than likely lose a sizeable chunk of his salary for refusing to go ahead with the normal publicity hulabaloo/press junket tour given that he'll be breaking some contractual obligations.

I think it's quite a brave move to make and it's a shame that many have become so cynical. It's such a jump to make when saying that this withdrawal is a clear attempt at getting a Dumb and Dumber sequel fincanced.

JP Liz V1

Deleted User wrote: »

Why the hell should he? I really hate it when people think that a celebrity should give away their earnings because of a personnel comment they make. For all you know, Carrey may have already given money to funds set up after Sandy Hook. Can you explain why it is you think he should donate his money?

He is a hypocrite imo, obviously he read the screenplay before he signed up for the film and there has been other shootings before Sandy Hook, if he really feels so strongly about it at least donating his salary would make him look to have some integrity, hopefully he did donate all or part of it firstly himself

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

He is a hypocrite imo, obviously he read the screenplay before he signed up for the film and there has been other shootings before Sandy Hook, if he really feels so strongly about it at least donating his salary would make him look to have some integrity, hopefully he did donate all or part of it firstly himself

There is a huge difference between a script and the subsequent film. A hell of a lot can change during the time when an actor signs on and the film is complete. Perhaps the version of the script Carrey read wasn't quite as extreme as the finished film or rewrites could have upped the ante so much that Carrey now regrets signing on. Or perhaps, in light of recent events Carrey was able to look at the film in a new light and didn't like what he saw.

To say that someone is a hypocrite because they change their mind is beyond stupid. Real world events often make people re-evaluate their lives and it seems that Sandy Hook had an effect on Carrey. To say that there have been shootings in the past and as such coming out now and not then makes anyone a hypocrite makes no sense. Maybe the past shootings didn't affect him on the same level as this one or perhaps they did but it took Sandy Hook for him to realise that he does not want to be associated with a film that glamourises violence.

I'm all for some needlessly explicit violence but I have found myself somewhat repulsed by the manner in which mainstream cinema has depicted acts of deplorable violence on recent years. More often than not, films exist solely to showcase horrific act after horrific act. Do I need to see a woman raped and murdered in gratituis detail. No I don't. Sure a number of talented film makers can create something unique and wonderful from it but more often than not Hollywood treats a subject matter such as the trafficking of 15 year old girls as little more than the set up for some macho, over the hill a star to wage war on the traffickers. Perhaps I'm getting older but I don't believe that you should trivialise something like that simply to make a few dollars. I enjoyed Taken but had deep reservations in going so and it's sad to see a trend pop up where mainstream cinema is no longer exploring the implications and consequences of violence but rather fetishising it for little more than cheap thrills. Just because you can show extreme acts of violence in an realistic manner doesn't mean that it's necessary. Gone are the days when gore films had a little wit to them and action films were about toppling tin pot dictators.

Just to add, if Carrey decides to donate or has donated money to those affected by Sandy Hood and gun crime in general, what business is it of yours? Do you expect him to hold a press conference or take to twitter to publicly pat himself on the back while Internet users around the world try and call it nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a script and the subsequent film. A hell of a lot can change during the time when an actor signs on and the film is complete. Perhaps the version of the script Carrey read wasn't quite as extreme as the finished film or rewrites could have upped the ante so much that Carrey now regrets signing on. Or perhaps, in light of recent events Carrey was able to look at the film in a new light and didn't like what he saw.

To say that someone is a hypocrite because they change their mind is beyond stupid. Real world events often make people re-evaluate their lives and it seems that Sandy Hook had an effect on Carrey. To say that there have been shootings in the past and as such coming out now and not then makes anyone a hypocrite makes no sense. Maybe the past shootings didn't affect him on the same level as this one or perhaps they did but it took Sandy Hook for him to realise that he does not want to be associated with a film that glamourises violence.

I'm all for some needlessly explicit violence but I have found myself somewhat repulsed by the manner in which mainstream cinema has depicted acts of deplorable violence on recent years. More often than not, films exist solely to showcase horrific act after horrific act. Do I need to see a woman raped and murdered in gratituis detail. No I don't. Sure a number of talented film makers can create something unique and wonderful from it but more often than not Hollywood treats a subject matter such as the trafficking of 15 year old girls as little more than the set up for some macho, over the hill a star to wage war on the traffickers. Perhaps I'm getting older but I don't believe that you should trivialise something like that simply to make a few dollars. I enjoyed Taken but had deep reservations in going so and it's sad to see a trend pop up where mainstream cinema is no longer exploring the implications and consequences of violence but rather fetishising it for little more than cheap thrills. Just because you can show extreme acts of violence in an realistic manner doesn't mean that it's necessary. Gone are the days when gore films had a little wit to them and action films were about toppling tin pot dictators.

Just to add, if Carrey decides to donate or has donated money to those affected by Sandy Hood and gun crime in general, what business is it of yours? Do you expect him to hold a press conference or take to twitter to publicly pat himself on the back while Internet users around the world try and call it nothing more than a publicity stunt.

I'm not sure I'd agree - Kick Ass 2 is going to be based on the comic, same as Kick Ass was based on the first miniseries. If anything, KA2 the comic raised the bar for the level of gratuitous, cheap violence involved - so it's fair to assume that the film would probably skip some of the nastier bits but still follow generally close to the same pattern. It's not like KA2 is the first film from a new director/screenwriter whose work has never been seen before.

It's Carrey's business whether he changes his mind or not about the film and its violence, but he would have to be naive if he doesn't think the timing on this would look like a cheap attempt at early publicity. I'm not sure that cartoon ultraviolence is in any way related to actual guncrime, in the US or elsewhere - a more dangerous attitude is the mainstream Hollywood approach of showing action heroes as PTSD-free mass murderers who can shoot hundreds of bad guys with nary a drop of blood spilt and no sign of any psychological trauma after the fact. But, ultimately, Carrey put his comments out there and so must have expected a variety of reactions and interpretations.

johnny_ultimate

I'm more sympathetic to Carrey given the film in question - Mark Millar's work is some of the shallowest, crassest content out there, favouring empty, adolescent shocks over above all else (despite what he says to the contrary).

It is a strange situation - it is odd that Carrey signed up in the first place. But then again, I think we can all point to a major event or tragedy that has shifted our perspective on some issue or forced us into taking action (not that Carrey was ever soft spoken on gun control issues). There's been other massacres, but maybe this one had a particular impact on Carrey for whatever reason. I certainly agree this is only going to draw attention to the film - controversy didn't harm the first - but I do also sort of admire him for speaking his mind, and IMO he did it in quite a respectful way. I don't think it's outside the realms of possibility that he simply changed his mind in the last six months.

Bacchus

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a huge difference between a script and the subsequent film. A hell of a lot can change during the time when an actor signs on and the film is complete. Perhaps the version of the script Carrey read wasn't quite as extreme as the finished film or rewrites could have upped the ante so much that Carrey now regrets signing on. Or perhaps, in light of recent events Carrey was able to look at the film in a new light and didn't like what he saw.

I don't buy that in the slightest. The script was hardly "My Little Pony" when he signed up, not to mention it is a well known comic and the movie that this is a sequel to sold itself as a gritty, witty, violent take on superheroes. He knew what was in store and signed the dotted line.

Deleted User wrote: »

To say that someone is a hypocrite because they change their mind is beyond stupid. Real world events often make people re-evaluate their lives and it seems that Sandy Hook had an effect on Carrey. To say that there have been shootings in the past and as such coming out now and not then makes anyone a hypocrite makes no sense. Maybe the past shootings didn't affect him on the same level as this one or perhaps they did but it took Sandy Hook for him to realise that he does not want to be associated with a film that glamourises violence.

There are shades of grey here. He is an anti-gun advocate who, in the run up to the movie release, distances himself from a violent movie he earned a lot of money making. Ok, Sandy Hook involved little kids so maybe that did have more of an impact on him than previous shootings but this looks a lot like having your pie and eating it too.

Also, to be clear, changing ones mind is fine and often takes guts to admit but to have a moral stance against something, do something that goes against that moral stance to make a lot of money and THEN publicly distance yourself from your actions, that has hypocrisy all over it IMO.

Deleted User wrote: »

... more stuff

I generally agree with what you said here.

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to add, if Carrey decides to donate or has donated money to those affected by Sandy Hood and gun crime in general, what business is it of yours? Do you expect him to hold a press conference or take to twitter to publicly pat himself on the back while Internet users around the world try and call it nothing more than a publicity stunt.

Carey is a celeb. It is the life he choose. With that life comes the public eye. How much celebs interact with the public and the media is largely down to them and their actions. Carey clearly feels comfortable putting it out there to the world that he is withdrawing support for this movie. He is using his public profile to push his own agenda. So I think it is important to have a level of transparency, otherwise who's to say he's not laughing his way to the bank, firing off a few rounds at baby rabbits.

I expect no press conference or anything of the sort. I would have expected not to have even heard about this. If he didn't want public scrutiny, it should have been done behind closed doors or at least done through a statement from the production company, not through his personal twitter account. He went public though and as such needs to be transparent or there will be a huge question mark over his motives.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

hfallada

I think films like kick ass and kill bill are extremely violent. But since they are so unrealistic , that it really doesn't matter as its so unrealistic I can't see it influences people to go on a killing spree.

But why dont American actors if they care about violence stop doing the huge amount of films that glorify war. A lot of young people naively join the army thinking it like the movies but it couldn't be anymore diffenent

Rubber_Soul

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

He is a hypocrite imo, obviously he read the screenplay before he signed up for the film and there has been other shootings before Sandy Hook

Sandy Hook was a little more than just another shooting though,
20 kids under the age of 7 were killed. Yes there have been plenty of other shootings but none have hit so deeply. I just don't see how anyone can label him as hypocritical for his view on gun violence changing after something like that.

Bacchus

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Sandy Hook was a little more than just another shooting though,
20 kids under the age of 7 were killed. Yes there have been plenty of other shootings but none have hit so deeply. I just don't see how anyone can label him as hypocritical for his view on gun violence changing after something like that.

Have you read the thread? Genuine question because if you had you'd have seen it mentioned that he has always been an anti-gun advocate. So basically what we have here is a flip-flopping of his moral compass from anti-gun to starring role in high profile violent movie involving guns and then back to anti-gun, using Sandy Hook as his excuse. Hypocrite.

I do acknowledge though that Sandy Hook is different to other incidents but as someone who was publicly anti-gun, why make the movie in the first place. In my opinion, his career has dried up over the past decade and this was a perfect vehicle for him to make a bucket load of cash and relaunch his 'brand' at the expense of his morals. Sandy Hook probably made him go... "I've made a huge mistake" and what we're seeing here is a very public backtracking. Doesn't mean he's not still getting all the money and publicity though.

Fysh

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Sandy Hook was a little more than just another shooting though,
20 kids under the age of 7 were killed. Yes there have been plenty of other shootings but none have hit so deeply. I just don't see how anyone can label him as hypocritical for his view on gun violence changing after something like that.

I don't see Sandy Hook as being any worse than Columbine, personally, because when you're talking about children of any age being murdered (especially by someone their own age) any notion of "better" or "worse" goes out the window.

I can appreciate that such an incident happening around the same time as someone stars in a film with substantial violent content may have given them pause for thought, but I don't like the "OMG SANDY HOOK WAS AN UNPRECEDENTED HORROR" agenda that's bounding around. Yes, it was horrific, especially for those directly affected, but it's hardly like no similar events had ever happened. I would also argue that, American blindness to the world at large notwithstanding, it is dwarfed in scale by Anders Breivik's horrific actions in 2011.

I maintain my skepticism about the timing of this announcement, if not Carrey's stance.

Fysh

To the surprise of nobody in any way familiar with the film industry, the first viral marketing clip for Kick Ass 2 has been released today. Convenient that the film happens to have become a talking point over the last couple of days, ensuring that the viral clip gets high visibility, eh?

(No, I'm not linking to it, that's what they want me to do...)

Mickeroo

Fysh wrote: »

To the surprise of nobody in any way familiar with the film industry, the first viral marketing clip for Kick Ass 2 has been released today. Convenient that the film happens to have become a talking point over the last couple of days, ensuring that the viral clip gets high visibility, eh?

(No, I'm not linking to it, that's what they want me to do...)

I also heard them talking about Dumb & Dumber 2 on the radio yesterday afternoon funnily enough(saying Empire of the Sun have been signed up to score it).

humanji

Hell of a mountain being made out of a molehill here. Carrey had a change of beliefs and felt he'd be doing himself an injustice by supporting a film that he became morally at odds with after the massacre at Sandy Hook. That's it. As he said himself, he's not ashamed of making the film. He just feels uncomfortable with promoting it because of the level of violence in it.

It's not hypocrisy to have a change of heart. Hell, if more actors went into filmmaking with a sense of morals instead of a love of money, then there might be a lot less sh*te being made.

Bacchus

Seriously, is anyone bothering to read the thread? He didn't have a change of beliefs, he has always been anti-gun yet he signed up for lead role in a violent gun-toting movie. He abandoned his morals then and (as I've said already) I believe he realized this too late and is backtracking to save his image/boost his public profile. Not to mention the timing of it so close to the release yet so far away from Sandy Hook itself.

If he went into this movie with his sense of morals intact, he never would have done it in the first place. That's the whole point of this debate. He had morals, ignored them for cash and is now backtracking. Conveniently, he still gets the cash & the potentially career resurrecting role.

Mickeroo

humanji wrote: »

Hell of a mountain being made out of a molehill here. Carrey had a change of beliefs and felt he'd be doing himself an injustice by supporting a film that he became morally at odds with after the massacre at Sandy Hook. That's it. As he said himself, he's not ashamed of making the film. He just feels uncomfortable with promoting it because of the level of violence in it.

It's not hypocrisy to have a change of heart. Hell, if more actors went into filmmaking with a sense of morals instead of a love of money, then there might be a lot less sh*te being made.

But he must know by doing this he's giving the film even more publicity? There's more people talking about the film now than there ever was. The film is nowhere near big enough to have generated this much publicity off its own back.

Completely agree. He knew that this was going to be a violence-heavy movie when he signed on. Well, I'm assuming he did; Carrey is a deeply intelligent person, so it would seem strange for him to sign up to a movie without knowing what it is. There's also the chance of him seeing the previous movie - it was kinda hard to miss it, especially with the media attention it received at the time (speaking of - I always found it very funny how journalist/critics/whoever else was so shocked about the fact that a kid said the word c*nt, yet seemingly not at the fact that the very same kid brutally murdered a lot of people in that same scene).

So Carrey, with strong anti-gun and violence sentiments, signs up to a violent movie, then removes support once this terrible event happened and suddenly he gets his morals again? Just seems odd.

humanji

Bacchus wrote: »

Seriously, is anyone bothering to read the thread? He didn't have a change of beliefs, he has always been anti-gun yet he signed up for lead role in a violent gun-toting movie. He abandoned his morals then and (as I've said already) I believe he realized this too late and is backtracking to save his image/boost his public profile. Not to mention the timing of it so close to the release yet so far away from Sandy Hook itself.

If he went into this movie with his sense of morals intact, he never would have done it in the first place. That's the whole point of this debate. He had morals, ignored them for cash and is now backtracking. Conveniently, he still gets the cash & the potentially career resurrecting role.

Are you reading the thread? He had a set of beliefs. Then he made the film, which wasn't against this set of beliefs. Then Sandy Hook occurred and his beliefs changed. Then he said that while he has nothing against the film, he doesn't feel right promoting it because of his new set of beliefs.

Mickeroo wrote: »

But he must know by doing this he's giving the film even more publicity? There's more people talking about the film now than there ever was. The film is nowhere near big enough to have generated this much publicity off its own back.

But this will be forgotten soon enough. And by making a public statement, he's drawn temporary attention his beliefs. It's a win/win situation for him. He knows full well that he's not going to stop people who want to see the film from seeing it.

Bacchus

humanji wrote: »

Are you reading the thread? He had a set of beliefs. Then he made the film, which wasn't against this set of beliefs. Then Sandy Hook occurred and his beliefs changed. Then he said that while he has nothing against the film, he doesn't feel right promoting it because of his new set of beliefs.

The film is against his set of beliefs though. He is against gun violence. This movie involves gun violence. He ignored his morals because it was convenient for him to do so and now he has flipped again to save his image. He hasn't developed a new set of beliefs. He simply ignored them for a while. Hence the sentiment that he is a hypocrite.

humanji wrote: »

But this will be forgotten soon enough. And by making a public statement, he's drawn temporary attention his beliefs. It's a win/win situation for him. He knows full well that he's not going to stop people who want to see the film from seeing it.

Totally win-win for him. He has promoted his anti-gun stance while featuring in a big Summer movie.... that just so happens to contain gun violence. Genius really.

Stopping people from seeing the movie is not what he wants btw. This movie is his best chance of kick starting his career again.

humanji

Bacchus wrote: »

The film is against his set of beliefs though. He is against gun violence. This movie involves gun violence. He ignored his morals because it was convenient for him to do so and now he has flipped again to save his image. He hasn't developed a new set of beliefs. He simply ignored them for a while. Hence the sentiment that he is a hypocrite.

His beliefs were against real life gun violence, not film violence. He had no problem with violence in films because it's not real. But after Sandy Hook he changed this belief. He feels he can't morally justify holding the two beliefs and he now sees them being at odds. Ironically enough, he was a hypocrite before, and no longer is.

Totally win-win for him. He has promoted his anti-gun stance while featuring in a big Summer movie.... that just so happens to contain gun violence. Genius really.

Stopping people from seeing the movie is not what he wants btw. This movie is his best chance of kick starting his career again.

As I said, he's not trying to stop the film from being seen. He just doesn't feel right promoting it himself. There's a world of difference.

humanji

humanji wrote: »

His beliefs were against real life gun violence, not film violence. He had no problem with violence in films because it's not real. But after Sandy Hook he changed this belief. He feels he can't morally justify holding the two beliefs and he now sees them being at odds. Ironically enough, he was a hypocrite before, and no longer is.


As I said, he's not trying to stop the film from being seen. He just doesn't feel right promoting it himself. There's a world of difference.

What was it about Sandy Hook that made him change his mind towards violence in movies?

Rubber_Soul

Bacchus wrote: »

Have you read the thread? Genuine question because if you had you'd have seen it mentioned that he has always been an anti-gun advocate. So basically what we have here is a flip-flopping of his moral compass from anti-gun to starring role in high profile violent movie involving guns and then back to anti-gun, using Sandy Hook as his excuse. Hypocrite.

Yes I did read it and I still don't see how he is being hypocritical. I'd be an advocate for gun control, I'm also a fan of violent movies, does that make me a hypocrite? There's a world of difference between wanting to limit the number/type of firearms and how easy it is to access them in the real world, and watching what Hollywood puts up on the screen. I wouldn't watch real life footage of people being shot but I have no problem seeing it in a fictional context because I know it is just that, fiction.

Bacchus wrote: »

I do acknowledge though that Sandy Hook is different to other incidents but as someone who was publicly anti-gun, why make the movie in the first place. In my opinion, his career has dried up over the past decade and this was a perfect vehicle for him to make a bucket load of cash and relaunch his 'brand' at the expense of his morals. Sandy Hook probably made him go... "I've made a huge mistake" and what we're seeing here is a very public backtracking. Doesn't mean he's not still getting all the money and publicity though.

Why make it? Because pre-Sandy Hook he presumably thought, just like I do, that film violence =/= real life violence, but has subsequently changed his mind after the horrible events there. It didn't change my feelings on the issue but I can understand if it did someone elses.

You can be sure the studio lawyers will have their bases covered for instances like these and Carrey will no doubt be forfeiting a fairly sizeable chunk of his fee for failure to promote the film, something which he seems willing to accept.

Fysh wrote: »

I don't see Sandy Hook as being any worse than Columbine, personally

Well I'd disagree with you there if even for the simple fact that the death count was twice as high. More importantly though there's something elementally more horrific about violence vs very young children. You can argue that's wrong as I guess that's subjective but I doubt we'll find agreement there.

Bacchus

humanji wrote: »

His beliefs were against real life gun violence, not film violence. He had no problem with violence in films because it's not real. But after Sandy Hook he changed this belief. He feels he can't morally justify holding the two beliefs and he now sees them being at odds. Ironically enough, he was a hypocrite before, and no longer is.

So you argue that that his beliefs were against real life violence, not movies. Then why the big deal about this movie if that's the case. Why the need to publicly come out with that statement. Doesn't add up. It's been said before here, there have been plenty of other incidents of mass shootings in the states before Sandy Hook. He didn't seem to care about them when he signed up for the movie.

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Yes I did read it and I still don't see how he is being hypocritical. I'd be an advocate for gun control, I'm also a fan of violent movies, does that make me a hypocrite? There's a world of difference between wanting to limit the number/type of firearms and how easy it is to access them in the real world, and watching what Hollywood puts up on the screen. I wouldn't watch real life footage of people being shot but I have no problem seeing it in a fictional context because I know it is just that, fiction.

That doesn't make you a hypocrite at all. You separate the two, many people do not. The problem is that Carey is the one that is linking movie violence and gun violence by his statement. So therefore he obviously does see a link between movie violence and real life. So the question remains, if he is opposed to this kind of violence in movies, why make it at all. The hypocrisy comes from him ignoring his beliefs in order to further his career and then backing away from the whole thing in a very public way. The timing of it all is quite suspect too. Also, I don't buy into his Sandy Hook excuse for reasons I've already outlined. I do think though that it made him face the misstep he took and he's on damage control.

StarshipPooper wrote: »

Why make it? Because pre-Sandy Hook he presumably thought, just like I do, that film violence =/= real life violence, but has subsequently changed his mind after the horrible events there. It didn't change my feelings on the issue but I can understand if it did someone elses.

I doubt this. How many people are killed in gun related crimes in the states every year. How many mass shootings have there been in the past decade. He didn't just suddenly think after Sandy Hook "sh*t, maybe it's cos of the movies". There's like a one in a million chance that's what happened

StarshipPooper wrote: »

You can be sure the studio lawyers will have their bases covered for instances like these and Carrey will no doubt be forfeiting a fairly sizeable chunk of his fee for failure to promote the film, something which he seems willing to accept.

No doubt about it. Money is only one part of it though. Carey is back on the map now and this movie could be huge for him. Seriously, his career has gone down the drain in the past 7-8 years. This movie could save him.

S.M.B.

You'd swear Carey was box office poison and Kick Ass 2 was going to be the biggest hit of the decade the way the cynics are going on here second guessing Careys motives.

Kick Ass was an R-rated movie made outside of the studio system that earned just enough at the box office ($90 million) to warrant a sequel. It has a loyal and somewhat cultish following which means it will probably have a similar showing this time around. It's a blip in the Hollywood ocean.

Mr. Poppers Penguins made close to $200 million (albeit with nearly double the budget) two years ago. Yes Man (well within this barren 6-7 year period people are claiming) made $223 million on a similar budget.

Yet some people seem to think that Carey is this Hollywood outcast who needs to lie and con his way into the hearts and minds of the general movie going public and hollywood casting directors.

humanji

Deleted User wrote: »

What was it about Sandy Hook that made him change his mind towards violence in movies?

Who knows? Unless he wants to give exact details as to why he changed his mind, we'll never know. It could have been the straw that broke the camels back. He may have some connection to the people of Sandy Hook or been approached by people there.

Bacchus wrote: »

So you argue that that his beliefs were against real life violence, not movies. Then why the big deal about this movie if that's the case. Why the need to publicly come out with that statement. Doesn't add up. It's been said before here, there have been plenty of other incidents of mass shootings in the states before Sandy Hook. He didn't seem to care about them when he signed up for the movie.

Again, he had one belief and then that changed to another belief. Making the film was not at odds with his original belief, but it was at odds with his new belief.

And the reason he came out about it, I would assume, would have something to do with him not wanting to publicise the film, telling his agent, his agent telling his publicist, and the two of them writing a statement for Carrey to tell his fans. That's usually how these things work in Hollywood.

Beefy78

Kick Ass isn't just a violent movie. It's a violent movie in which one of the main characters is a child who spends much of the film being shot at. I suspect Kick Ass 2 will be very similar.

It really isn't that much of a stretch to see how someone could find it difficult to promote such a film on the back of one of the most horrible massacres in America's history which involved lots of children being gunned down. Even if he doesn't believe there's an association between movies and such horrific real life violence doing promotion is going to mean having to defend the film and risking being portrayed in a way that is not necessarily in line with his actual beliefs.

As for the timing... he could have made this decision many months ago but as promotion of the film wasn't happening at that point then it wasn't an issue. It's only now as promotion gets into full swing that it has become one.

Bacchus

humanji wrote: »

Again, he had one belief and then that changed to another belief. Making the film was not at odds with his original belief, but it was at odds with his new belief.

I'd love if I could change my beliefs as and when it suited me in order to be rich and famous. I do concede that Sandy Hook was the most 'extreme' (in terms of the age of the victims) and that may have been a factor but he was an anti-gun advocate before that incident and there have been many many shootings before this too. If movie violence was ok before, why is it suddenly not ok? Has there been some major link between Sandy Hook and movie violence that I've not heard of?

I think at this point, we'll have to agree to disagree. Neither of us are really convincing the other of their POV

Beefy78 wrote: »

Kick Ass isn't just a violent movie. It's a violent movie in which one of the main characters is a child who spends much of the film being shot at. I suspect Kick Ass 2 will be very similar.

It really isn't that much of a stretch to see how someone could find it difficult to promote such a film on the back of one of the most horrible massacres in America's history which involved lots of children being gunned down. Even if he doesn't believe there's an association between movies and such horrific real life violence doing promotion is going to mean having to defend the film and risking being portrayed in a way that is not necessarily in line with his actual beliefs.

As for the timing... he could have made this decision many months ago but as promotion of the film wasn't happening at that point then it wasn't an issue. It's only now as promotion gets into full swing that it has become one.

You're actually the first person to make a good argument that he is being genuine. Can't really find fault with your logic. Well put.

humanji

Keep in mind that Carrey is also anti-vaccination, so that should give another insight into how his minds works.

Fysh

humanji wrote: »

Keep in mind that Carrey is also anti-vaccination, so that should give another insight into how his minds works.

He's welcome to be pro- or anti-whatever he likes, but being famous isn't a substitute for substantiating your views with evidence (well, I say that, celebrity culture in the US clearly disagrees with me).

Fysh

Fysh wrote: »

I'm not sure I'd agree - Kick Ass 2 is going to be based on the comic, same as Kick Ass was based on the first miniseries. If anything, KA2 the comic raised the bar for the level of gratuitous, cheap violence involved - so it's fair to assume that the film would probably skip some of the nastier bits but still follow generally close to the same pattern. It's not like KA2 is the first film from a new director/screenwriter whose work has never been seen before.

I think the problem with Kick Ass 2 and anything by Millar is that adaptions generally throw away 90% of the source material. I haven't read Kick Ass 2 and have no intention to, after reading the terrible Wanted and abysmal Kick Ass I've lost all interest in Millar's work. It's among the lowest of the low and exists simply to try and shock.

Fysh wrote: »

It's Carrey's business whether he changes his mind or not about the film and its violence, but he would have to be naive if he doesn't think the timing on this would look like a cheap attempt at early publicity. I'm not sure that cartoon ultraviolence is in any way related to actual guncrime, in the US or elsewhere - a more dangerous attitude is the mainstream Hollywood approach of showing action heroes as PTSD-free mass murderers who can shoot hundreds of bad guys with nary a drop of blood spilt and no sign of any psychological trauma after the fact. But, ultimately, Carrey put his comments out there and so must have expected a variety of reactions and interpretations.

I don't believe that onscreen violence can lead to people committing acts of violence and find the manner in which characters can lay waste to entire legions of baddies without any consequences a little unsettling. Sure it works well in something like Crank or Shoot Em'Up but by and large, Hollywood has romantised the notion of spree killers.

Bacchus wrote: »

I don't buy that in the slightest. The script was hardly "My Little Pony" when he signed up, not to mention it is a well known comic and the movie that this is a sequel to sold itself as a gritty, witty, violent take on superheroes. He knew what was in store and signed the dotted line.

There is a massiv difference between the script and the finished film. I've read scripts where a line such as "hero enters a room and finds 5 henchmen waiting. He takes out his guns and shoots them all" is turned into a 3 minute sequence full of graphic, excessive gore and slow-motion that somewhat romanticizes the act of murder. I enjoy graphic violence as much as the next person but at times find it to be more boring than entertaining.

Bacchus wrote: »

There are shades of grey here. He is an anti-gun advocate who, in the run up to the movie release, distances himself from a violent movie he earned a lot of money making. Ok, Sandy Hook involved little kids so maybe that did have more of an impact on him than previous shootings but this looks a lot like having your pie and eating it too.

Also, to be clear, changing ones mind is fine and often takes guts to admit but to have a moral stance against something, do something that goes against that moral stance to make a lot of money and THEN publicly distance yourself from your actions, that has hypocrisy all over it IMO.

Carrey's comments may actually cost him more money than he earned for the film. Pretty much all contracts will stipulate that the stars must do promotion for the film and refusing to do such will see them penalized financially. I also don't think that any of Carrey's actions make him a hypocrite. There is a world of difference between real world violence and that depicted on screen. If Carrey had done a number of ads for the NRA and then came out against them after being paid he could be called a hypocrite. Or if he had in the past spoken about a link between onscreen violence and real world violence he could be called one but that isn't the case here.

Bacchus wrote: »

Carrey is a celeb. It is the life he choose. With that life comes the public eye. How much celebs interact with the public and the media is largely down to them and their actions. Carey clearly feels comfortable putting it out there to the world that he is withdrawing support for this movie. He is using his public profile to push his own agenda. So I think it is important to have a level of transparency, otherwise who's to say he's not laughing his way to the bank, firing off a few rounds at baby rabbits.

I expect no press conference or anything of the sort. I would have expected not to have even heard about this. If he didn't want public scrutiny, it should have been done behind closed doors or at least done through a statement from the production company, not through his personal twitter account. He went public though and as such needs to be transparent or there will be a huge question mark over his motives.

If Carrey hadn't made a statement then questions would have been asked. A few people I know who write for film publications were told that during press for the film Carrey would most likely be absent. Now it wasn't largely known till Carrey mad his comments but having your star absent for press and promotion is generally seen as a star admitting that they made a stinker. By making his stance clear early on, Carrey has done more good than harm for the film. A lot of people who were on the sidelines regarding it will be more likely to go see it and those who thought his absence from press was a bad sign won't be waiting on that 700 mg rip to appear online. Carrey made it clear that he's not ashamed of the film he made, he just doesn't feel that now is the time that he wants to be seen promotion a film where a teenage girl is seen being shot at and shooting at others.

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No change in attitude what so ever. I'm no the least bit repulsed by onscreen violence and some of my all time favorite films are excessively violent but there's a massive difference between films such as The Chaser, The Yellow Sea, I Saw the Devil, etc and what Hollywood routinely churns out. What I'm repulsed by is the casual manner in which showing a woman being raped and murdered in graphic detail simply for the sake of it has become acceptable entertainment.

I just find it rather boring and unnecessary the manner in which Hollywood has turned deplorable violence into easy to digest entertainment. I also don't see what my comment you quoted has to do with Carrey. When it comes to art I judge it and not the artist. there are a number of filmmakers whose actions I find disgusting yet still love much of their output. Polanski for instance, his actions make him a very hard person to like but that does not take away from his films, many of which stand alongside the greats.

I'm sure that I'll enjoy Kick Ass 2 for what it is, a big, studio, spectacle filled 90+ minutes of excessive gore and profanity but at the end of the day I would much rather watch a film such as Super or Special which deals with the affects of violence in a more adult and entertaining manner.

Saw Kick Ass 2 tonight thought that it was a truly terrible film. The biggest surprise was how little of Jim Carrey there is in it, he gets

about 5 minutes of screen time before being killed off

and as such it gives perhaps a little context to his turn around and criticism of the film. It's quite common in the world of film making to only give an actor their pages and as such it's not too far fetched to think that Carrey may have only seen his own pages of the script and been unaware of the violence in the film. Sure you can argue that he must have read the comic or seen the first film but for a lot of actors when approaching a role they try not to read/watch other interpretations of the material in order to give a performance that isn't indebted to someone or something else.

Bullseye1

Glad you enjoyed the movie and think its the lowest of the low so tha those of us who did enjoy it must be scumbags.

I don't mind people not liking a movie but when your posting then drags those people who did like the movie into your ring of distaste I take exception.