Film Buffs Share The Most Mind Blowing Behind-the-Scenes Fact They Know About Classic Films.
When dozens, sometimes hundreds of people come together to create a project on a large budget, magic can be made. But what happens behind the scenes of the magic? Wild things. That's what.
1. Jack Nicholson pulled a real gun on Leo DiCaprio in The Departed, even though it wasnt in the script. He thought the scene wasnt intense enough initially.
2. Prior to filming the movie Psycho (1960 movie), Alfred Hitchcock, widely considered the master of suspense, made arrangements to buy every copy of the book he could find, so nobody would know the ending. Psycho is considered by many to be one of his finest films.
3. The role of Dr. Hannibal Lecter was originally to be played by Gene Hackman, who also wished to direct; but he later withdrew from the project owing to the evolving screenplay's graphic content.
The role later on, as we all know, was played by Antony Hopkins which landed him an Oscar Award.
4. Over 450 gallons of blood were used in the production of the film Kill Bill. The fight in The House of Blue Leaves (the bar in the movie) took eight weeks to shoot. The MPAA insisted that Tarantino cut the scene due to the amount of blood. Instead he changed it to black and white, which the MPAA approved. The Japanese version of the scene remains in color.

6. In The Wolf of Wall Street, the chest beating and humming performed by Matthew McConaughey is actually a warming up ritual that he performs before acting. When Leonardo DiCaprio saw it he encouraged him to include it in their scene.
7. O.J. Simpson almost played the Terminator, but James Cameron thought his persona was too pleasant to portray such a dark character.
8. The sound of the velociraptors communicating with each other in Jurassic Park is actually the sound (Continued)
Continue reading on the next page!
of tortoises mating.
9. The big scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent stabs Mia in the heart with a needle was actually shot in reverse. So really, John Travolta was pulling the needle out of her.
10. The burning-of-Atlanta scene in Gone With the Wind was created by setting fire to old sets found on the MGM lot.
11. While filming Poltergeist, Robbie truly got choked during a take by the robot clown doll it wasnt until the boy turned purple that Spielberg realized what was actually happening.


12. In Django Unchained, theres a scene where Leo DiCaprio smashes a glass in a fit of rage, causing his hand to bleed. This was an accident, but Tarantino kept it in the movie.
13. The stunt double for Daniel Radcliffe was paralyzed in the last Harry Pottermovie, so Daniel created a fundraiser to pay for his college education.
14. In The Hangover, Ed Helms is ACTUALLY missing a tooth. He got a permanent implant when he was a teenager, so his dentist removed his implant for filming.

15. In The Wizard of Oz, the Wicked Witch of the West was severely burned by a flame in the scene where she (Continued)
Continue reading on the next page!
is leaving Munchkinland after confronting Dorothy.
16. When Alex is being dunked repeatedly in A Clockwork Orange, there was an air tube underwater for him to breathe through however, it got clogged, so all of his struggles were him actually drowning.

17. Viggo Mortensen had no intention of working on The Lord of the Rings until his son begged him to do it.
18. Tony Todd put actual bees in his mouth while filming this scary Candyman scene.
19.The voice of Boo from Monsters, Inc., Mary Gibbs, was just a toddler during production. The crew couldnt get her to sit still and read her lines, so they had her play in the studio while following her around with a mic.
20. Joe Pesci actually bit Macaulay Culkin while filming this Home Alone scene.
21. ET and Poltergeist were originally supposed to be the same movie, called Night Skies.
22. Will Ferrells reactions during the jack-in-the-box scene in Elf were totally real the director surprised him every time he played with one of the toys by using a remote control.
23. During the chestbuster scene in Alien, the actors didnt know what was about to happen, so their absolutely horrified reactions are real.

Continue reading on the next page!
24. Sean Connery wore a wig in every single one of his Bond performances.
25. Some Wookie suits in Star Wars were made from human hair.
26. Alfred Hitchcocks, Psycho (1960) was the first American film ever to show a flushing toilet.

27. Ryan Gosling was cast as Noah in The Notebook because the director wanted someone not handsome.
28. Barbie in Toy Story is voiced by Jodi Benson, the same actor who voiced Ariel in The Little Mermaid.
29. The original cut of The Wolf of Wallstreet had over four hours worth of content.
30. The movie Titanic (1997) cost more to make than the actual ship (Titanic) that sank.
The movie cost $200 million. The actual costs to construct the ship between 1910 to 1912 were (Continued)
Continue reading on the next page!
$7.5 million. Adjusted for inflation, that would be around $125 million in 1997.

31. Pierce Brosnan was contractually forbidden from wearing a full tuxedo in any non-James Bond movie from 1995-2002.
32. The ornaments that Marv steps on in Home Alone are actually candy.
33. In Ferris Buellers Day Off, Charlie Sheen stayed awake for 48 hours to achieve a suitably wasted look for his cameo.
34. Fantasia (1940) was originally a short called The Sorcerers Apprentice, but Walt Disney overspent on the score and decided to make it feature length film rather than waste money.
35. Sean Connery turned down roles in The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones 4 and Blade Runner.
36. To thank Robin Williams for his work on Aladdin, Disney sent him a late Pablo Picasso painting.

37. In Harry Potter, Alan Rickman was the only person other than J.K. Rowling to know Snape was defending harry because (Continued)
Continue reading on the next page!
he was in love with Lily Potter to make his performance genuine.
38. When Edward Norton first fights Brad Pitt in Fight Club, he was asked to actually hit Pitt. Pitts reaction is genuine and Norton was trying to stop himself from laughing during the scene.
39. Heath Ledger almost broke Jake Gyllenhaals nose by grabbing his head and kissing him too hard in Brokeback Mountain.
40. Each frame of the CGI scenes in James Camerons, Avatar (1/24 of a second) took an average of 47 hours to render.
BONUS: Jurassic Park did not use any real dinosaurs. Spielberg wanted real dinosaurs, but none of the available raptors were members of the Screen Actors Guild.

Feminists Slam Man Telling Them They Can't Have Both Chivalry And Equality
A man on Twitter informed feminists they had to choose between chivalry and equality.
He was promptly raked over the coals for even assuming an antiquated concept would be considered as a viable option.
Twitter user @Rich_Cooper stated:
"Dear feminists. You either get equality or chivalry. You can't have both."
One user responded:
"I'll take equality. I don't need special treatment."
Cooper's rhetorical question did not go over so well. Both women and men expressed their disdain for his message.
One male user observed that chivalry was irrelevant and treating everyone with kindness and respect was compulsory.
"What people care about is caring, empathic [sic], considerate, thoughtful people, NOT whether THEIR door is held for them or THEIR meal is paid for them."
"Are there gender stereotypes in het[erosexual] dating? Sure. But that's separate from being a warm, giving, caring, grounded person."
Some women got right down to the point.
The notion of chivalry and equality are mutually exclusive and not a lot of people thought it was a major priority for feminists.
Common courtesy is not chivalry.
This user pointed out the fact that chivalry stems from a history of men outdoing other men. The concept had very little to do with women.
"Chivalry is a medieval concept of men dressing to impress other men. It has little to do with equality."
"Some men were on top, other men were beneath them. Historically, women were rarely invited into the process."
Neil Bradley described the outdated concept of chivalry as one that implies men being superior to women in a September 8, 2017, article for Medium publications.
"Examples: opening the door for a woman, paying for a woman's meal, gesturing for a woman to go first. The justification is either that women are not physically as strong (to open the door), able to provide (pay for their own meal), or are more deserving of compassion than men (allowing women to go first)."
Bradley also added that he wants to treat others the way he wants to be treated and asked if that approach should be motivated by chivalry or equality.
"If the genders are to be considered equal and treated equally, how a man treats a woman will essentially be the same as how a man treats a man."
"The obligation to open the door, pay for the meal, and let women go first vanishes. Men do not do this to other men, therefore why do it for women?"
His final take was that the two concepts can't co-exist. Either one is chivalrous or treats everyone as equals.
At the end of the day, people were happy to show chivalry the door.
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, Medium
Katy Perry, P!nk, Paul McCartney And More Sign Letter Threatening To Boycott SiriusXM Radio
Hundreds of artists have signed a letter threatening a boycott if SiriusXM's parent company, Liberty Media, doesn't back down from opposing the Music Modernization Act.
The act, which was expected to pass through Congress, streamlines royalty payments in the new age of digital technology, but it seems SiriusXM is objecting to a small section that would have the satellite radio company paying royalties on recordings dating before 1972.
That's a whole lot of songs and a whole lot of money the company is hoping to skip out on paying, but not if stars like Paul McCartney, P!nk, Stevie Nicks, Sia, Carly Simon, Gloria Estefan, Mick Fleetwood, Don Henley, Max Martin, and Katy Perry can help it.
The letter read, in part:
I'm writing you with grave concern about SiriusXM's opposition to the Music Modernization Act (Classics Act included).
We are all aware of your company's objections and trepidation but let me say that this is an opportunity for SiriusXM to take a leadership position. As you are aware, 415 Representatives and 76 Senators have already cosponsored the MMA along with industry consensus. It's SiriusXM vs all of us. We can either fight to the bitter end or celebrate this victory together. Rather than watch bad press and ill will pile up against SiriusXM, why not come out supporting the most consequential music legislation in 109 years? We do not want to fight and boycott your company but we will as we have other opponents. Stand with us! Be brave and take credit for being the heroes who helped the MMA become historic law! Momentum is building against SiriusXM and you still have an opportunity to come out on the right side of history. We look forward to your endorsement but the fire is burning and only you can put this out.
SiriusXM resoponded with a letter of their own:
Over the past several weeks, we have been the subject of some stinging attacks from the music community and artists regarding our views on the Music Modernization Act. Contrary to new reports and letters, this is really not about a SiriusXM victory, but implementing some simple, reasonable and straightforward amendments to MMA. There is nothing in our "asks" that gut the MMA or kills the Act. So let's talk about the substance of the amendments we propose, because we truly do not understand the objections or why these concepts have incited such a holy war.ontrary to the accusations, SiriusXM has proposed three simple amendments to the MMA.
First, SiriusXM has asked that the CLASSICS Act recognize that it has already licensed all of the pre-1972 works it uses. This amendment would ensure that artists – the people who are supposed to be at the heart of the MMA – receive 50% of the monies under those existing licenses. Is that unfair? Just today, Neil Diamond wrote in the LA Times that: "I receive a small amount of songwriting royalties, but no royalties as the recording artist." How can that happen? To date, SiriusXM has paid nearly $250 million dollars in pre-'72 royalties to the record labels. We want to make sure that a fair share of the monies we have paid, and will pay, under these licenses gets to performers. Without this provision, artists may never see any of the money SiriusXM paid, and will pay, for the use of pre-1972 works. Artists not getting paid hurts our business!
Second, Sirius XM thinks that the fair standard to use in rate setting proceedings is the standard that Congress chose in 1995 and confirmed again in 1998 – which is called the 801(b) standard. However, we are willing to move the "willing buyer/willing seller" standard contained in the MMA. In exchange, we have asked for the same concession that the MMA grants to other digital music services, but we were left out of — simply that the rates that were set last year for five years now apply for ten years. We thought this was a fair compromise when we read the "new" MMA that was released this weekend by the Senate, and are willing to live by that compromise.
Third, SiriusXM is asking the simple question: "Why are we changing the rate court evidence standard for musical compositions in this legislation so that it gives another advantage to broadcasters over satellite radio and streaming services?" There is no policy rationale for this change to tilt the playing field further in their favor, and frankly no one has been able to explain it to us. It is only fair that we debate why the change to Section 114(i) is in the MMA.
Did you all catch that? It sounds like lawyer speak for "we don't really want to say where we stand."
It seems all the letters were for naught. The Music Modernization Act passed in the U.S. Senate.
It was time to celebrate and dance in the streets.
As the saying goes, honest pay for honest work.
Some Residents Of Uranus, Missouri Are Not Happy About The Name Of Their New Local Newspaper 😆
There's nothing like a good pun about human anatomy. Really gets the juices flowing!
Owners of the new Uranus Examiner must have been snickering as they announced the paper's name. Apparently, it's caused quite the controversy in the small town of Uranus, Missouri, over the last few days.
Residents are divided over whether the pun is an embarrassment or perfectly snarky:
Folks on the internet responded with maturity and composure after learning about the Uranus Examiner.
Oh, wait. No they didn't.
If you think about it... there might actually be a method to the madness here. The brand new paper's name has received widespread media coverage over this past week. Simply put... everyone's talking about Uranus.
In terms of publicizing their new venture, the owners of the Uranus Examiner have actually done a pretty sweet job!
In the video above, a woman suggests the paper should have been called "The Pulaski County Examiner."
If you ask me, that's TOTALLY BORING, and wouldn't have generated as much interest and publicity for the paper. So while the name might be cringeworthy to some, you can bet Uranus that it'll stick around. Who knows, Uranus might even grow as a result!
H/T: Indy100, The Kansas City Star
Woman Was Fired For Refusing To Wear A Bra At Work—And Now She's Suing
Christina Schell, from Alberta, Canada, stopped wearing bras three years ago citing health reasons.
While Schell did not specify the health reasons, she did state she finds them to be "horrible."
But after her refusal to sign or adhere to a new enforced dress code policy to wear a bra or tank top under her work shirt at a golf course grill where she worked, Schell was promptly fired.
Now, the 25-year-old has filed a human rights violation against the Osoyoos Golf Club, Osoyoos, in British Columbia, Canada.
Schell said:
"I don't think any other human being should be able to dictate another person's undergarments."
When she asked the general manager, Doug Robb, why she had to comply, the manager told her the mandate was for her protection.
Robb allegedly said:
"I know what happens in golf clubs when alcohol's involved."
After losing her job, she brought the case to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and told them the club's dress code was discriminatory because the rule didn't apply towards male employees.
Schell told CBC:
"It's gender-based and that's why it's a human rights issue. I have nipples and so do the men."
David Brown, an employment lawyer in Kelowna, BC, said gender-specific dress codes could be viewed as discriminatory under the BC Human Rights Code.
He stated:
"It's an interesting question as to whether or not an employer can dictate the underwear that women can wear, but they don't say anything about the underwear that men can wear, and does that create an adverse impact on the individual?"
Brown added:
"If this policy is found to be discrimination, the next question is does the employer have a bonafide occupational requirement to essentially impose this on the individual?"
"I'm kind of scratching my head as to what that occupational requirement would be."
As for the tank top option, due to working under oftentimes extreme heat serving tables outsides, Schell did not want to wear another layer of clothes just because of her gender.
Schell said:
"It was absurd. Why do you get to dictate what's underneath my clothes?"
Employment lawyer Nadia Zaman told CBC that the club can enforce a gender-specific policy as they deem necessary as long as the establishment can prove it is for the occupational safety of its workers.
But the attorney questioned if forcing female employees to wear a bra was applicable in this case.
Zaman stated:
"If they simply require that female employees wear a bra but then they don't have a similar requirement for males, and they can't really justify that … then there is a risk that their policy's going to be deemed to be discriminatory."
Under British Columbia's discrimination law, it is illegal for employers:
'to discriminate against any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'.
McDonald's employee Kate Gosek, 19, agrees with Schell in that the dress code is "unnecessary." She too was harassed by her employers at a McDonald's in Selkirk, Manitoba, over refusing to wear a bra.
"She just told me that I should put on a bra because, McDonald's—we are a polite restaurant and no one needs to see that."
Schell's case sparked plenty of debates on Twitter.
Schell is not alone in her disdain for bras.
Schell is still waiting to hear from the Human Rights Commission about her claim.
H/T - GettyImages, Twitter, Indy100, CBC















