- Joined
- Aug 2, 2019
Strange that Metokur is covering the Jack Murphy cuckold saga to tens of thousands of people who find it hilarious meanwhile Null doesn't believe that news is worth pinning. Is he out of touch?
"Jim" / James Augustine née James Patrick O'Shaughnessy / Mister Metokur / Jim81Jim / Internet Aristocrat - His autistic videos and the gay beta "sweetie squad" who mindlessly suck his cock.
- Thread starter Null
- Start date
Fentanyl Floyd
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2020
Well simply put, it's just not as interesting as Ralph farting.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2021
Disappointed that the stream was dedicated to just some random cuck.
There Is Light At The End
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2021
But it's pinned on the main page, though
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
I think Null knows he can't compete with Jim streams
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
Jack must have porn images of
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
I think - and this isn't just from this incident, it's from over the years - when Null doesn't immediately see the point about people yelling at him to feature or look at something, he just tunes it out hard. KF admin lyfe, you know.
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2013
Jim brings up "Hollywood Accounting" at one point to reference that a film doesn't need to "make a dime" and could lose money and the company wouldn't care.
This is incorrect. Hollywood Accounting refers to the way production companies will weasel out of paying taxes and royalties on productions by claiming they didn't make any profits on the film. Despite the film's net profits widely outstretching their marketing budget/production budget. It's exclusively a way that these companies will nickel and dime their creators. One of the most famous examples of this occurring was Stan Lee was supposed to be paid royalties on the first Spiderman film contractually because he was the creator of the character. However that contract was based on profits and what the studio did was just claim they didn't make any profits so they didn't pay him anything. He sued them and won 10 million because he saw through this. This is often why it's recommended to ask for a lump sum when doing contracts with these studios or asking for a percentage of the money they actually take in as opposed to profits. Or doing what George Lucas did and asking for a percentage of merch sales because you can't fudge those numbers.
If a film loses money for the production company they clearly know this and know how much money they actually made off of it. And it directly impacts things like if sequels get greenlit. He brings up Ghostbusters as an example but it's a really good example of this occurring. There's an interview with Dan Akyroyd where he brought up how Paul Fieg lost the studio money with the film and they spent 40 million dollars on reshoots after telling the studio he didn't need to do any previously. And that it directly resulted in the film's sequel not being greenlit and the director not being asked to do any more films with the studio. They subsequently cucked him out of royalties when they did the recent Ghostbusters Blu ray collection by making Ghostbusters 2016 a digital download. That way avoiding any physical release royalties. And they can get away with it too since nobody gives a shit about Ghostbusters 2016 anyway.
He is right in the sense that companies can write off a production loss as a tax break and will fund films with low budgets either to keep an intellectual property's rights to themselves or to save more money on their taxes later. (One of the most famous examples of this is Uwe Boll never lost any money on any of his films because he abused a German tax loophole where you get a tax write off if you fund a film that loses money). But these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
This is incorrect. Hollywood Accounting refers to the way production companies will weasel out of paying taxes and royalties on productions by claiming they didn't make any profits on the film. Despite the film's net profits widely outstretching their marketing budget/production budget. It's exclusively a way that these companies will nickel and dime their creators. One of the most famous examples of this occurring was Stan Lee was supposed to be paid royalties on the first Spiderman film contractually because he was the creator of the character. However that contract was based on profits and what the studio did was just claim they didn't make any profits so they didn't pay him anything. He sued them and won 10 million because he saw through this. This is often why it's recommended to ask for a lump sum when doing contracts with these studios or asking for a percentage of the money they actually take in as opposed to profits. Or doing what George Lucas did and asking for a percentage of merch sales because you can't fudge those numbers.
If a film loses money for the production company they clearly know this and know how much money they actually made off of it. And it directly impacts things like if sequels get greenlit. He brings up Ghostbusters as an example but it's a really good example of this occurring. There's an interview with Dan Akyroyd where he brought up how Paul Fieg lost the studio money with the film and they spent 40 million dollars on reshoots after telling the studio he didn't need to do any previously. And that it directly resulted in the film's sequel not being greenlit and the director not being asked to do any more films with the studio. They subsequently cucked him out of royalties when they did the recent Ghostbusters Blu ray collection by making Ghostbusters 2016 a digital download. That way avoiding any physical release royalties. And they can get away with it too since nobody gives a shit about Ghostbusters 2016 anyway.
He is right in the sense that companies can write off a production loss as a tax break and will fund films with low budgets either to keep an intellectual property's rights to themselves or to save more money on their taxes later. (One of the most famous examples of this is Uwe Boll never lost any money on any of his films because he abused a German tax loophole where you get a tax write off if you fund a film that loses money). But these are the exceptions rather than the rule.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2019
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2021
What happened to him? I'd imagine he'd be going nuts with conspiracy theory stuffJim misses David Stay.
THE LIGHT SHINES!!
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
I believe that nool may be a filthy, stinking, giant-honkered JEW!
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2019
Looks like everyone's favorite drunken Australian neo-nazi loser Randbot had some not so nice things to say about the stream. Jim's a cuck because he's not heiling Hitler enough I guess. I can't archive the post for some reason. Link to post. Perhaps I'll listen to his stream later and hear what he said myself.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Lmao what an absolutely mad at the Internet faggot. He should have a special suicide stream, I might even watch that.
- Joined
- May 17, 2019
The cuck allegedly glows in the dark too. He's also glued to infamous fence sitter Tim Pool.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2017
Hitler having some dirt on Jim is the only possible explanation. Sorry, fellow Sweety troops, but Jim has internet friends.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
I just don't care.
Dammit Mandrake!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
Careful Null, that excuse doesn't fly in this thread for some reason.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2017
I'd agree, but then I went through his Twitter timeline and holy shit, Jack handled it so well, that pouring a ton of gasoline on the wildfire would be a better damage control. And all of this because of one fucking superchat about some old article!
Unless it's Ralph farting loud enough for someone to claim that he definitely shat himself.
0 0
--- .... / --.. . .-. ---
Forum Staff
🐕🦺 Animal Control 🐕🦺
💬 Off-Topic Mod 💬
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2017
Not to sound jaded, but the Murphy thing is somewhat old hat in the sense that it seems to be a story which reoccurs multiple times throughout recent history. I'm reminded of the homophobic republicans of the early 2000's who would get caught soliciting gay men. Just ctrl+r "homophobic republican" with "alpha-male vlogger" and "soliciting gay men" with "engaging in cuckoldry."
And while this is my personal experience, it also doesn't help that I didn't know a single thing about the guy until this happened, and I still don't now beyond he's into cuckoldry and is indignant about it, which is also something that has been played out before.
In either case, I understand why people would find it amusing, but I also really can't muster the motivation to actually invest in something as familiar a story as this.
And while this is my personal experience, it also doesn't help that I didn't know a single thing about the guy until this happened, and I still don't now beyond he's into cuckoldry and is indignant about it, which is also something that has been played out before.
In either case, I understand why people would find it amusing, but I also really can't muster the motivation to actually invest in something as familiar a story as this.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
Total disagreement. Some dude getting cucked and getting humiliated for being a cuck will never, ever cease to be hilarious. Just fuck off with that dumb bullshit.