4 ms·

Go on...

thematrixturtle 4y ago
It can be reasonably deduced from context that GP does not mean "Trevor is quiet, dedicated, upstanding, sincere young man and this whole thing is a terrible misunderstanding."
nopenopenopeno 4y ago
On that note, maybe I should clarify it’s not that he is dishonest or has a reputation for dishonesty. Rather, he was always a stuntman and a showman more than he was an athlete. To his credit, he always seemed comfortable with that reputation, maybe because he really enjoys scheming up stunts. Either way, to anyone who knows him, it would seem strange for him to buy an airplane and not dream up a stunt to perform with it. He also has the money to waste.
- salawat 4y ago
  ...Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? The thing I don't understand is the destruction of the plane really doesn't add anything... Why invite the downstream complexity and bureaucratic ire of the most notoriously iron fisted, merciless, detail oriented, and humorless federal agency out there? Like I get adrenaline is a hell of a drug. It can be a great high. That adrenaline spike is a completely different spike when you're getting your wings clipped, because you've demonstrated a remarkably poor grasp of cost/benefit analysis. Like, I'm more open than most to the freedom to do stupid things as long as no one gets hurt... You kinda have to make a credible effort to guarantee that though. IIRC from the original video and thread, the plane actually ends up looping or spiraling around below him at some point, meaning he apparently didn't even bother to trim the aircraft/lock the controls for a predictable trajectory to impact. Even having that thought on camera would have gone a long way toward getting this whole thing further away from scandalous controversy territory, because it would have at least demonstrated forethought and concern for what the plane would do afterward. The crime here, in a sense, is being a perfect example of what not to be in my estimation. If the FAA does nothing, it kinda presents a major image problem. Which is bitter, I might add, because optics based justice is the worst kind in my estimation.
  - nopenopenopeno 4y ago
    > Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? He isn’t a filmmaker. He is a stuntman. For him, the stunts are the easy part. He only wants to fake the context.
- phist_mcgee 4y ago
  Wasting a perfectly good airplane by crashing it into a national park. A stunt not worth watching, or enjoying.

Go on...

It can be reasonably deduced from context that GP does not mean "Trevor is quiet, dedicated, upstanding, sincere young man and this whole thing is a terrible misunderstanding."

nopenopenopeno 4y ago

On that note, maybe I should clarify it’s not that he is dishonest or has a reputation for dishonesty. Rather, he was always a stuntman and a showman more than he was an athlete. To his credit, he always seemed comfortable with that reputation, maybe because he really enjoys scheming up stunts. Either way, to anyone who knows him, it would seem strange for him to buy an airplane and not dream up a stunt to perform with it. He also has the money to waste.

salawat 4y ago
...Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? The thing I don't understand is the destruction of the plane really doesn't add anything... Why invite the downstream complexity and bureaucratic ire of the most notoriously iron fisted, merciless, detail oriented, and humorless federal agency out there? Like I get adrenaline is a hell of a drug. It can be a great high. That adrenaline spike is a completely different spike when you're getting your wings clipped, because you've demonstrated a remarkably poor grasp of cost/benefit analysis. Like, I'm more open than most to the freedom to do stupid things as long as no one gets hurt... You kinda have to make a credible effort to guarantee that though. IIRC from the original video and thread, the plane actually ends up looping or spiraling around below him at some point, meaning he apparently didn't even bother to trim the aircraft/lock the controls for a predictable trajectory to impact. Even having that thought on camera would have gone a long way toward getting this whole thing further away from scandalous controversy territory, because it would have at least demonstrated forethought and concern for what the plane would do afterward. The crime here, in a sense, is being a perfect example of what not to be in my estimation. If the FAA does nothing, it kinda presents a major image problem. Which is bitter, I might add, because optics based justice is the worst kind in my estimation.
- nopenopenopeno 4y ago
  > Then get a two seater, hide the other guy off camera, and if you really insist on the narrative angle, stage a crash site? He isn’t a filmmaker. He is a stuntman. For him, the stunts are the easy part. He only wants to fake the context.
phist_mcgee 4y ago
Wasting a perfectly good airplane by crashing it into a national park. A stunt not worth watching, or enjoying.