Hollywood: Shit or Garbage

I kinda half-like Sydney Sweeney, but I am getting a little sick of this Jezebel Hussy.

Yes I know that makes me partially gay.

But still.

Madame, please put away your bosoms. I've seen them. We all have. Many times. They're becoming wallpaper. You are making boobs boring, and that I cannot abide.

The heartthrob and "Euphoria" star was looking to get everyone excited for the NFL season when she posed in her birthday suit with a variety of props that cover just enough to be legally distributed on airwaves.

"Think you know sports?" Sweeney said in the ad for Novig, a prediction market company also partnered with the New York Mets. "Prove it."

The camera then pans out to show that Sweeney appears to be fully nude, with only two footballs covering her chest.

"Novig is just sports," Sweeney says.

Among the riskiest shots, Sweeney sits atop a basketball hoop with a basketball on her finger tips and her hair falling over her breasts.

"You can trade this sport," Sweeney says.

"This sport too," she says while wearing soccer gear and a soccer ball held up by her feet.

She then lies on a felt billiards table and quips: "You can't trade this. I just look good here."

Sweeney is no stranger to controversial ads; she's previously sold soap for Dr. Sasquatch, where the soap was infused with her bathwater.

She's supposed to be a major movie star -- but she's acting like the most rancid, desperate OnlyFans e-girl.

I know many of your are naturally skeptical and demand evidence for everything I say, so here is your precious evidence, offered solely to appease the people saying "Cite?"

Ugh, Jennifer Lawrence.

The Doctor Who actor who played Rose Tyler's Soyboy Beta Cuck boyfriend "Mickey" on the show between 2005 and 2010 has been charged with multiple sex crimes, from sexual assault to peeping/spying to indecent exposure.

While the UK legal system did not offer any information on the nature of the investigation, rumors of the actor's behavior had been rampant for years already. In 2021, Clarke even sued the Guardian for libel for its story on the rumors of his history of sexual assault, based on claims from more than 20 women.

The actor sued, but during the trial, more than a dozen women testified against him and alleged that he sexually abused them, charges that he adamantly denied.

Clarke lost the legal challenge and was ordered to pay the newspaper around $4 million in court costs.

Next item: Inde Navarette exploded to the A list, or at least the B+ list, for her turn in Obsession.

Jeff Sneider, meanwhile, is an internet "scooper." What's a scooper? It's someone who passes around rumors about upcoming movies, like who's being looked at for a role or what a plot points might be in it. In other words, it's a job for idiots. 80% of true tips are just planted leaks by the studio, which wants free advertising, so the "scooper" can take no credit for that.

Meanwhile, most "scoops" are false, usually just some bullshit the "scooper" saw on Reddit (Doomcock gets accused of this) or, when there aren't any rumors to drive traffic, simply something the "scooper" made up entirely for clicks.

Anyway, this oxygen thief wrote to Inde Navarette demanding her attention and demanding she give him content for his fake job, and she, or more likely her PR team, didn't respond.

He was outraged that someone would blow-off an internet nobody dickbag and threatened her, telling her that he would begin reporting every nasty and sham rumor he heard about her unless she gives him the attention he deserves:

When someone ragged on him for being a complainy gay bitch, he responded that this wasn't a complaint -- it's a threat.

In other words, he's copping to a blackmail charge.

And he's so arrogant about it. He really thinks he's something. He really thinks his stupid "look up rumors on Reddit and then turn them into twitter posts" job is something to brag about.

And then he doubled down, not just on the blackmail, which he deems a legitimate tactic, but on how awesome he is for being a gay-ass internet movie nerd.

After a ton of criticism, and other internet movie geeks announcing that they cannot countenance blackmail and would no longer platform the blackmailer, he offered a fake apology, in which he spent two sentences fake-apologizing and the rest of the post complaining that He's the Real Victim Here.

Jeff Sneider @TheInSneider

Sep 5

Tired of the noise so I'll delete and apologize, as per protocol. That way we can all move on. I am sorry to Ms. Navarrette, who was and will continue to be treated fairly, despite previous comments suggesting otherwise.

She got swept up in a long-running feud.

I will continue to battle Hollywood's gatekeepers and publish the truth about this industry, as I always strive to. But my ego got the best of me and I went overboard with my victory celebration.

Having said that, the things I’ve seen written about me on this app over the past 24 hours from people who have never met me, spoken to me, subscribed to my newsletter, or watched my podcast, are absolutely crazy and I suggest some of you take a long, hard look in the mirror, because you're way worse than I could ever be.

But most of us aren't blackmailers.

I don't send execs death threats or anti-Semitic comments or any of the crazy shit I’ve been sent. This app is nuts, but I’ll never leave, because we deserve each other. You're stuck with me. And so is Hollywood. Have a safe and happy Labor Day Weekend. I'll use the holiday to reflect and maybe I'll return kinder and gentler. Let's hope you do the same…

I've never before been scolded so much in what purports to be a "per protocol" (in other words, offered only under pressure to relieve the pressure) apology.

Hollywood has made a movie about "To Catch a Predator" and its host Chris Hanson. It's called Primetime.

They never contacted Hanson, ever.

The only plausible explanation: The film is a hit piece against the guy catching predators to protect the poor, embarrassed child sex predators.

No, really. One of the gay child sex predators the show exposed killed himself, and this new movie, featuring Robert Pattinson, attacks the entire mission of exposing predators based on one predator's cowardly decision to off himself.

The film apparently centers on the death of William Conrandt, who got caught up in a sting operated by Hansen's team. Conrandt never showed up for his meeting in the sting, however, and Hansen never confronted him, on camera or off. Police got warrants for Conrandt, a former assistant DA, who shot himself when police showed up, THR notes in a lengthy parenthetical added to the transcript of their interview with Hansen. That makes this framing for Primetime even more suspect, since (a) law enforcement conducts similar stings, and (b) Texas had been conducting a parallel operation at the time as well.

When asked by THR whether Hansen regrets what happened with Conrandt, Hansen wonders what exactly he's supposed to regret:

We were completely transparent about what happened from the moments after it happened. This was no secret. It was unfortunate that somebody chose to take his life rather than face criminal consequences. You can draw your own conclusions as to why. They found child pornography on his computer. He had sexually explicit conversations with two different decoys posing as 13-year-old boys.

I can't speak for the police, but they decided to arrest him, apparently concerned about the possible destruction of evidence. He chose to take his life rather than face the consequences. We reported what we knew the next day on the Today show and continued to be transparent throughout the story.

There are certain things you can't control. Obviously, you don't want anybody taking their own life, but that was a decision made by that individual. They'll ramp it up in the film, I'm sure, and make it more dramatic than it really was. It was based upon an Esquire article that came out years ago that was a bit of a hit piece then, and apparently it's part of the narrative in the film.

Isn't it very odd how Hollywood both protects child sex predators and even attacks anyone exposing them?

Hollywood is just Hell with good restaurants. And I'm done with Robert Pattinson, who I never cared for anyway.

Speaking of Hollywood predictability: It's always when there's a Republican president when Hollywood puts out movies glorifying assassinations, civil wars, and uprisings. When there's a Democrat president, it's a scandal to even consider such material for theatrical exploitation.

Well, Trump is on office, the left is gunning down executives and celebrating their assassins as folk heroes, and Hollywood decides now is the perfect time to celebrate the so-called Peasants' Revolt from around, I dunno, 1340? (Nope, 1381.)

I'm assuming that's what this. Wat Tyler's rebelling over... well, taxation.

But I doubt they'll make it about government taxation. They'll claim it was over forgiving student loans and child care.

"It's time to set the world on fire."

And the trailer does mention taxes but then shifts the real grievance to... being forced to work for wages. Something Gen Z and Millennials are constantly complaining about. Changing a revolt over taxes to a complaint that we shouldn't have to work at all because Real Socialism Has Never Been Tried.*

To hell with Andrew Garfield, who is a really obnoxious Marxist SJW anyway, and Paul Greengrass too.

The only new movie I'll pay to see in theaters:

Bonus: this is annoying as hell, but keep in mind, it's the """ reporters """ who are constantly asking actors if they agree that their new movie is the gayest movie ever and supports LGBT folx.

Their answer here is essentially forced.

* Actually, watching that video, I see that part of the problem was "duties" owed to the king and the lords. So it wasn't just a matter of money taxation, but required labor for the lords.

Will the movie make the point, then, that it is evil to force one man to work for the profit of another? You know, like in socialism or communism? Doubt it!

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:30 PM

| Access Comments