The Syndicate

I don't know how much clearer I coould explain that "Terry Crews being clearly credited in the cast" proved to be a stunt for an engineered gimmick. It's not an attack on DH, it's not an attack on his informed decision, it's not a call for any "punishment".

The second baseman got listed to play. Many people probably did bet on him, knowing he'd play. Then he walked on the field and got crushed by a cow. That's the situation.

Golden wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 6:15 pm Timmer's 'cameo' rule obviously came about to prevent people unexpectedly nicking off with part of a pot that wasn't anticipated.

Very amusing, considering that what I just pointed out about Brad Pitt + timmer's "IMDb is bible" rule now combine to earn him part of the pot.

Baseball analogies are unfortunately lost on me, as well, since, you know, from Nauru, but I assume one would pick baseball players in order to earn points for how they play baseball, not for being crushed by a cow falling on them from the sky as soon as they step on the field? Because that's this movie's treatment of your baseman Crews.

Yes, Crews is one of three [arguably four] actors (also Lewis Tan and Bill Skarsgard, [arguably Rob Delaney]) getting the same treatment. No change on my point. Yes, DH picked Crews for some easy money (and Crews also figuring in another movie this year). Clear from the get go, but no change on my point.

Opened the IMDb page again and now found (or perhaps just never spotted it in the first place) that even Brad Pitt is credited! Yes, for that scene. So go ahead, timmer, grab some 40 mils yourself, it's now a four-way split. :confetti:



oh wow Matt Damon too? Did anyone pick him?!

Consider myself just having thrown some paper in the air and let's move on. Have a great rest of the tournament, everybody!

Golden wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 3:38 pm

Ricochet wrote: ↑Sun May 20, 2018 3:11 pm Anyway, I'm done and will just await that predictable verdict favorable to Crews' inclusion. Didn't even plan to post in here as it is, but I suppose this thing got to me, after seeing the movie today. : )

I mean, the reason it's completely predictable is the same as when you steal something and the judge says 'why did you steal it' and you say 'because it only cost 5 cents so it's not really stealing anyway' and then you get convicted for 17 years manual labour.

I think your rule would be subjective to apply, but even if it was able to be expressed objectively it wasn't a rule at the time the draft occurred, so it would be wholly unreasonable to change the rules on someone now. And I say this as someone whose box office take is being directly affected.

I'm confused who's stealing what or doing the stealing here. If anything, Dharma is likely snatching a third of the actor loot from both of us for a cameo-that's-really-just-a-cameo-except-it-wasn't-marketed-as-a-cameo-because-it-had-to-not-be-marketed-as-such-in-order-for-the-gimmick-to-work. But that's not really on him either, it's just how the movie played out.

And my point on the rule was also that it all has to do with this respective movie having found a way to both adhere to the credited actors rule and screw around it entirely since the crediting thing was nothing but a gimmick. Again, as expected from somethins that's Shenanigans - The Movie.

The crediting of Terry Crews in this movie is a complete artificial smokebomb, that's all my appeal is about.

Anyway, I'm done and will just await that predictable verdict favorable to Crews' inclusion. Didn't even plan to post in here as it is, but I suppose this thing got to me, after seeing the movie today. : )

Have I, though? Slingshot is a character disposed within the action. Crews is a gimmick. He is used exactly the way I expected it to happen to "Peter" The "Peter" actor is used more as an actor in this movie that Crews is.

He's playing a part that was designed so that he doesn't play any real part. And presented by pre-movie marketing as a real deal (trailer shots afterwards non-existent etc.), which in my view includes him showing up in the credit list and all. That's all I'm saying and where I stand on.

To put it another way, I regard Slingshot from Suicide Squad to be have been a properly cast actor, regardless of the nature in which his plotline turned to dud, compared to which with Crews I see nothing but a highbrow bait and switch.

Fully aware of that. For one, it's not that kind of a cameo as the Goldblum example and also not the kind I was bringing up.

For two, for all intents and purposes, Crews is credited (see him on IMDb), so he'll probably fly, but I just felt this movie (tongue-in-cheek-to-the-bone as it is) presented its own exception. The "use" or "appearance" of this actor was a complete joke - an engineered one. A cameo in anything but name masquerading instead as a secondary role. Again, this being Deadpool after all, he might as well have just shouted his Old Spice line and it would have been the exact same thing. If we're on board to roll with this, then enjoy your 40 mil, by all means.

If you can straight up tell me you wouldn't express the same complaint, had you had an actual actor and someone else a veiled cameo for nothing but a plot in-joke device, then I guess the moral compass is established and we can carry on.

So is Dharma getting a full third of the dead pool (see what I did thar) with Terry Crews? Because bullshit.