comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Suddenly

Jim Carrey Abjures Kick-Ass 2 Because of Violence


In a surprise Twitter-bomb, Jim Carrey has withdrawn support for his upcoming film Kick-Ass 2. His reasoning after the cut.

Creator and writer Mark Millar had this to say:

As you may know, Jim is a passionate advocate of gun-control and I respect both his politics and his opinion, but I’m baffled by this sudden announcement as nothing seen in this picture wasn’t in the screenplay eighteen months ago. Yes, the body-count is very high, but a movie called Kick-Ass 2 really has to do what it says on the tin. A sequel to the picture that gave us HIT-GIRL was always going to have some blood on the floor and this should have been no shock to a guy who enjoyed the first movie so much… Kick-Ass 2 is fictional fun so let’s focus our ire instead of the real-life violence going on in the world like the war in Afghanistan, the alarming tension in Syria right now and the fact that Superman just snapped a guy’s fucking neck.

I have to point out the inconsistency of decrying criticism of fictional violence only to turn around and criticize fictional violence (let’s be real– when it comes to onscreen blood and body count, Superman has nothing on Kick-Ass), but Millar does present one side of the ongoing debate over violence in popular media.

This “change of heart” came to the surprise of just about everyone. Considering that the film opens August 15th, the press circuit for the movie has just begun to ramp up– and, whether it was intentional or not, he has been receiving a lot of coverage since the tweet was published.

In the wake of tragedies like Sandy Hook and by hyper-violent films like Django Unchained, more people are thinking about how violence is used in the media. The border between what should and shouldn’t be acceptable to portray on film is a very hazy one, particularly in a world where sex and pleasure on screen are given NC-17 ratings and violence is promulgated as far as the PG-13 ratings.

I would love to think that Carrey is trying to do some good and call attention to this issue with his fame, but everything done in the public eye must be taken with a grain of salt.

(via MTV and IndieWire)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

TAGS: | |


  • Anonymous

    You do realize that the Superman line was a joke?

  • http://arewerobots.libsyn.com/ DarthBetty

    I know people like Jim Carrey. Depending on the mood, or current events they suddenly become very concerned with how they portray themselves and almost “take back” stuff they’ve said before because suddenly they realize SOMEONE MIGHT reference something they’ve said. Give him a few more years (or months) and he will be for high violence in cinema again.

  • Mina

    Was it? I mean he’s using it among legitimate examples of real-world violence that we should be more concerned with. It seemed to me like sort of a joke but sort of a “Why are you criticizing my movie and not that other movie?” Which might be a legitimate argument, but when slipped into a section about real-life violence that should concern us more than movie violence, it felt very out of place and silly.

  • Guymelef

    This whole thing just feels really weird. The Sandy Hook shootings isn’t the first event of its kind by any means. There have been numerous such incidents in the past and recently, long before Carrey embarked on making this movie, so it makes his reaction and distancing of himself from the movie rather odd.

  • Anonymous

    Not having seen the movie it is difficult for us to judge whether he has a point or not. However, I must say I think Carreys statement – in a bloody TWEET – which really jabbed a knife in the back of a whole crew and actors, is in exceptionally bad taste. He’s cashed his paycheck so now he can thrash the movie from his multi-million dollar home.

    If he is serious he should donate the entire paycheck he got to the survivors of Sandy Hook.
    Pay up or shut up!!!

  • Anonymous
  • tetisheri

    I feel like he’s being really hypocritical about this.

  • Anonymous

    If he really means this then he should donate the money he earned from this movie to the victims of Sandy Hook and/or an anti-violence charity.

  • http://zadl.org/ Captain ZADL

    Superman killed a lot more than 1 person. Like 129,000 people dead, 250,000 missing people buried in rubble. Probably a million people injured…. (see link below)

    What, you thought those building were empty?

    Hell, the whole town of Smallville is probably dead, since we saw everyone run inside buildings, that subsequently had trains thrown into them! Did Superman spend any time trying to rescue people, or take the fight to a remote area? No.

    Yeah, I know, there’s a difference between seeing a handful of people getting dismembered and shot up close, and watching thousands upon thousands of people die in the distance when a building (or 50, or 100) fall down because someone used some kind of weird gravity ray nearby, but let’s not forget the fallen of Metropolis.

    Honestly, snark aside, I maybe it’s because we can understand events like Sandyhook better than things like 9/11 that they seem more real, more present, more personal. Smaller numbers sound like people, bigger numbers sound like statistics.

    Anyway, that’s my rambling take on it.

    http://www.avclub.com/articles/science-estimates-that-the-damage-done-by-man-of-s,99165/

  • Amanda Burke

    Carrey may have withdrawn his support, but the photograph indicates that the Pepsi company is still standing proud :)

  • Anonymous

    I feel like Millar was taking a shot at Waid there.

    And that burns me up.

  • Anonymous

    Jim Carrey… oh, man.

    I suspect somebody told him he was coming off as a major hypocrite for being all pro-gun-control and then showing up in a movie that is a major celebration of gratuitous violence.

  • Jasmin Billinghay

    I think the Superman comment was in reference to the fact that for Kick-Ass violence is expected. The film’s name is violent, anyone who’s read the source material or seen the first movie would expect hyper-violence in the film. Also it’s a 15 certificate, the warnings explain that there’s violence. Superman isn’t known as a violent character, he’s the all American boy scout who’s supposed to be essentially non-violent or as non-violent as he can be. Man Of Steel was a 12A (in the UK that means anyone under 12 has to be with an adult to see the movie), people might not have expected to see that level of brutality in a Superman film. I read it as Millar commenting on the fact that Kick Ass’s violence is expected (and remarkably toned down from the source) so it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone that the sequel includes hyper-violence, let alone someone who’s in the movie. He’s saying that the Superman thing is more problematic because it’s unexpected and, arguably, out of character.

  • Sean Hodges

    Me too, if he was, especially as Millar has a bare fraction of the talent that Waid has, if that.

  • Anonymous

    I take Carrey’s newfound respect for the safety of children at face value, and look forward to reading his public apology for having helped a con artist falsely link life-saving vaccines with autism.

  • Aaron kooienga

    Mark Millar’s work is known for its epic amounts of violence
    while not as extreme as say Hellsing, Millar’s works are really, really, violent
    and I can’t blame Jim Carrey for being uncomfortable with it. Also it’s a
    little gauche of Millar to throw in a jab at the war in Afghanistan and the
    conflicts in Syria (both things I’m opposed to). Oh well

  • Melissa Bramble

    As far as I’m concerned, you win the internet today

  • Anonymous

    Seconded!

  • Carl Jackson

    The crew and the actors have been paid. The only people he’s hurting at this point are the producers. So I’m not sure what form the knife is in. He didn’t say anyone did bad work.

    He just comes off as someone that honestly believes in hindsight he contributed to a problem. I’m not sure I require martyrdom in order for someone to change their mind. It’s not like Carrey’s beliefs are going to swing the box office. The people who might listen to them weren’t going to see it in the first place.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nuuni.nuunani Nuuni Nuunani

    As someone who never had the least bit of interest in Kickass or Kickass 2 due to the senseless blood and violence, I can appreciate where Carrey is coming from.

    If I had to guess why he is waiting until after the film is finished to complain about it…I would presume that he wanted to try something more action packed due to his tendency to try various genres and he wanted to make it perfectly clear after the movie was finished, that he does not condone the acts presented in it.
    For him it could have simply been a role, with no interest in how the movie actually fares, simply in his own performance.

  • BabeWoreRed

    Jim, give people some credit for being able to negotiate the difference between fantasy and reality…

  • Camille Monae

    was Django Unchained really that violent to people… i mean, bloody, yes. but that is actually a part of the history of this country. so sorry you had to face the bloody truth

  • Laura Truxillo

    People have said the same thing about Jeremy Renner. I dunno, I don’t think there’s a whole lot of hypocrisy in being in a fictional movie with guns, but thinking that in real life they need to be better regulated. In movies, you know who the good guys and the bad guys are, and everyone goes home at the end of the day.

    That said, there’s also nothing wrong with having a change of heart and thinking, “If I had it to do over again, knowing and feeling what I do now, I wouldn’t have chosen to do this project.” It happens.

  • Brooke Michelle

    I also feel like the violence in Django was used, almost as another character. If that makes sense. What I mean to say is, it wasn’t random, gratuitous violence, it was there for a purpose.

  • Anonymous

    There are plenty of people involved in this project who are not established in Hollywood the way Carrey is and are dependent on the box office result of KA2 for their future careers – box office results are alpha and omega for them. The first movie did ok, but not great. Having a megastar like Carrey do PR for the sequel, as was in his contract, would probably have assured more moviegoers this time around. Now that won’t happen, obviously.

    The fanboys/girls will still buy tickets. The question is, will the wider audience do so now that Carrey won’t go on press junkets and remind people of its existence, pulling in his fans?

    I still think this was in utterly poor taste. If he had a change of heart he should have done a press release saying he’ll donate all the money he was paid to fighting gun crime. Not this way.

  • Erica M.

    I don’t blame him for having a change of heart after such a tragedy, but I never heard him or anyone else say he was going to HELP the families of Sandy Hook or others from various shootings. I find it a hollow statement to denounce something you were in, not helping the victims with time, money or some kind of community effort, but still make lots of $$$ for yourself from it.

  • Anonymous

    Check out this blog post by Mark Waid, whose comic Kingdom Come was a punch in the face to the ultra-violent wave of Dark Ages comics. http://thrillbent.com/blog/man-of-steel-since-you-asked/

    Mark Millar wasn’t saying he was bothered by the Superman neck-snap–he was taking a shot at anybody bothered by it.

  • kat

    Except rarely have I heard of actors taking on a role while hating the project, unless it was strictly for the money. So that either implies that at some point in time Carrey was fully behind Kick-Ass 2 (particularly when his character, at least in the trailers, seems to take gleeful delight in the violence being caused) but now as other people have suggested, he’s realizing the hypocrisy between that role and his own personal values and is trying to distance himself from it… or he just wanted the money he knew he would probably make from a project like this and is now trying to pretend he’s all good and moral and concerned about violence in films, while cashing in on his big paycheck

  • http://www.facebook.com/nuuni.nuunani Nuuni Nuunani

    Ive heard several cases like that. For example the actor who played Obi Wan Kenobi hated star wars and despised the whole project. When he heard that the first movie was going to be part of a trilogy he demanded that his character be killed off and he has stated that any fan letters he recieves concerning star wars he throws away without reading them and that as far as he is concerned, he never starred in it.

    Another case is the Ninth doctor of doctor who, who joined the project because he was expecting a darker and edgier reboot that would throw out everything concerning the old series. When he found out that it wasnt all going to be drowned puppies and storm clouds. And that several monsters from the old series would be making a return, he walked because it wasn’t what he wanted.

    Though you make a good point that realization of hypocrisy or money could be factors.

  • kat

    Christopher Eccleston actually left Doctor Who because of ongoing issues with the treatment of both cast and crew (at least from my understanding). And Alec Guinness only agreed to take on the role of Ben Kenobi after the studio offered to double his salary and give him a 2% gross on royalties; additionally he only began to dislike the role after the film became such a huge success because it overshadowed his previous works.

    While I don’t disagree that there are actors who are attached to a project, only to realize after completion how much they don’t like it; see Misha Barton and the terrible ‘You and I’ but I think the smarter thing to do is exactly what Alec Guinness did and refuse to do any press for the project, rather than proverbially biting the hand that fed you as Jim Carrey did (or at least if he’s going to complain about the violence, offer a meaningful token to show how he’s distancing himself from the project, such as offering half or all his salary to the families of the Sandy Hook victims).

    I also think TV shows are harder to compare than films because once a film is completed, short of refusing to participate in promoting it, actors have no say in how the film may be edited or marketed but at least with a TV show, actors can chose to walk away from it if it takes a turn they don’t like, as Mandy Patinkin did with Criminal Minds.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nuuni.nuunani Nuuni Nuunani

    Hmm…You make a very find point regarding the comparison between film and television. Though there have been cases where an actor has been contractually bound to a tv show (though it is rare) Generally speaking, the stars in TV shows seem to have more of a say in the project and what occurs over the star of a film. (Unless they make like Downey JR money)