• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

The Hangover: Part II hypocrisy

jayjay1122

jayjay1122

Android Expert
First let me say that I loved the first movie and will absolutely see Part II!!!

But, does anyone else find it hypocritical that the cast got up in arms and "revolted" at the casting of Mel Gibson as the crazy tattoo artist and his subsequent removal from the roll and them giving it to Liam Neeson?

First, Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist who is known to be unstable and violent was in the first movie and is reprising his roll as himself in the second one.

Second, Bill Clinton, a known philanderer who was also accused (and probably guilty of many crimes during his political career) is making an appearance in the sequel.

Has Mel lost it a bit? Sure!

But I find it strange that the cast, in a morally ambiguous movie to say the least, would so strongly object to one person but have no problem with two others!!

Anyone else find this ridiculous?
 
It is kinda silly but ultimately I'm only going to see the movie to get some quality laughs. The only thing that matters to me is that I'll eventually be paying $10.25 to be entertained.
 
I wouldn't cross the street to see either of those movies.

No one objects to working with Alec Baldwin who gets involved in so much drama, there's a tape of him berating his daughter and calling her a little piggy (not in the affectionate way, but the "You fat slob" way.) It gets all over the news and people repeatedly were playing it yet people are falling all over themselves to share the TV show with him on 30 Rock?

I don't condone anyone's behavior but none of those people are in any position to start throwing stones.
 
Yeah, I thought it was ridiculous that they cut him from it. Did they ever say why, or was it, just cause we wanted to?
 
G.Armour said:
Yeah, I thought it was ridiculous that they cut him from it. Did they ever say why, or was it, just cause we wanted to?
Click to expand...

They did not cite specific reasons as to why as far as I have seen, I only know they (most vocally Zack Galifianakis) don't want him in the movie!
 
jayjay1122 said:
First let me say that I loved the first movie and will absolutely see Part II!!!

But, does anyone else find it hypocritical that the cast got up in arms and "revolted" at the casting of Mel Gibson as the crazy tattoo artist and his subsequent removal from the roll and them giving it to Liam Neeson?

First, Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist who is known to be unstable and violent was in the first movie and is reprising his roll as himself in the second one.

Second, Bill Clinton, a known philanderer who was also accused (and probably guilty of many crimes during his political career) is making an appearance in the sequel.

Has Mel lost it a bit? Sure!

But I find it strange that the cast, in a morally ambiguous movie to say the least, would so strongly object to one person but have no problem with two others!!

Anyone else find this ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Allow me to take a stab or two. In bullet form.

1- Gibson pissed lots of people off.

2-Hollywood wants happy customers and therefore, reasons that Gibson is poison. At least for now. Pissed publics don
 
Irrespective of the The Hangover movie performance I will watch it's second part for Mel Gibson is a good artist to watch in movies.
 
the hangover was the best film of 2009 . . . i was waiting for its sequential part , but i think they are not interested in doing that so going to watch this similar film . and hoping laughter is there waiting for me .
 
I'll definitely watch the sequel but I was surprised that Mel was even approached for this project. Honestly, given his terrible reputation which keeps getting worse ... I'm surprised he's approached for anything anymore. I wouldn't want him NEAR any movie I was making.
 
jayjay1122 said:
First let me say that I loved the first movie and will absolutely see Part II!!!

But, does anyone else find it hypocritical that the cast got up in arms and "revolted" at the casting of Mel Gibson as the crazy tattoo artist and his subsequent removal from the roll and them giving it to Liam Neeson?

First, Mike Tyson, a convicted rapist who is known to be unstable and violent was in the first movie and is reprising his roll as himself in the second one.

Second, Bill Clinton, a known philanderer who was also accused (and probably guilty of many crimes during his political career) is making an appearance in the sequel.

Has Mel lost it a bit? Sure!

But I find it strange that the cast, in a morally ambiguous movie to say the least, would so strongly object to one person but have no problem with two others!!

Anyone else find this ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Yeah, so sick of everyone so over-sensitive and easily offended people...but then again, they want to make money so as cool as it would be to see Mel as a crazy tattoo guy and the fact it wouldn't bother me whatsoever....most people are probably offended by him and would not see the movie? That's what I'm thinking. I can't imagine the main cast wouldn't work with him...what do they care.
 
vice86 said:
Yeah, so sick of everyone so over-sensitive and easily offended people...but then again, they want to make money so as cool as it would be to see Mel as a crazy tattoo guy and the fact it wouldn't bother me whatsoever....most people are probably offended by him and would not see the movie? That's what I'm thinking. I can't imagine the main cast wouldn't work with him...what do they care.
Click to expand...

Holy shit Vice is that you?

LS2? Blackdemon here. It's a small world after all. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom