The Marvel/Sony Superhero Movies Thread

[Dead & Messed Up]

Mom, there are many levels and kinds of terrible...and that movie hits most of them.

https://images.prod.meredith.com/product/162662a0383149f535beed3dfa6dc3 e3/1520114857249/l/lego-minifigure-parts-light-flesh-stern-face-head

[Wryan]

There are amazing levels of terrible, too. :P

[Ivan Drago]

But........They Live has the greatest fight scene of all time.

[Dukefrukem]

And the greatest one liner of all time.

[transmogrifier]

My mom had one of my favorite reactions to a movie ever. She said she wanted to watch an alien movie, but like a conspiracy one. So I suggested They Live, because it's an alien conspiracy movie. After it was over, she turned to me and said, "You know that was terrible, right?"

Score one for your mum.

[Morris Schæffer]

Steve Ditko has died.

[Dukefrukem]

Cate Shortland to direct BLACK WIDOW movie

Duncan Jones also just announced he's doing a super hero movie. Unknown which yet.

[Ezee E]

Cate Shortland to direct BLACK WIDOW movie

Duncan Jones also just announced he's doing a super hero movie. Unknown which yet.

Doesn't seem like a pick for a MCU movie, Duncan that is.

[Ivan Drago]

Duncan Jones also just announced he's doing a super hero movie. Unknown which yet.

Green Lantern Corps, please.

[megladon8]

Just loving all the MRA/incel outrage over the Black Widow movie already.

[transmogrifier]

Black Widow, Hawkeye, War Machine, The Falcon, The Scarlet Witch, Vision, Bucky Barnes.... all characters who I really would never bother to see their own headlining movie. Bland in the extreme.

[Dukefrukem]

Black Widow, Hawkeye, War Machine, The Falcon, The Scarlet Witch, Vision, Bucky Barnes.... all characters who I really would never bother to see their own headlining movie. Bland in the extreme.

Natasha's backstory is super interesting though. Not so much the others for sure.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Black Widow has the power of being romantically linked to a new superhero every film she's in.

[Wryan]

Black Widow and Groot?........"Bloot"?

sorry

[Dukefrukem]

Green Lantern Corps, please.

Rogue Trooper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_Trooper

[Lazlo]

Disney Fired James Gunn As "Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 3" Director Over His Old Tweets (https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/adambvary/disney-fired-james-gunn-guardians-galaxy-tweets).

Couple things: Gunn's tweets are without doubt abhorrent and this is probably the right thing to do. But the fact that they were dug up by alt-right lunatics to harm someone who speaks out against Trump is also terrible.

Weird spot for Marvel. Gunn just turned in the script for Vol. 3. They can't possibly keep the script if they've seen cause to fire him as director, can they?

[[ETM]]

FUCK. F U C K.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

[Dukefrukem]

Wtf!!!!!!!!!!!

[Grouchy]

I hope he sues the socks off Marvel for being such a bunch of cowards.

I'd boycott a Gunn-less Guardians.

[Dukefrukem]

Shocked right now...

[Dukefrukem]

I hope he sues the socks off Marvel for being such a bunch of cowards.

I'd boycott a Gunn-less Guardians.

Seriously. Are we all made of paper? We can't joke about anything anymore. And even if we did, and stopped, if there's a record of it, you're still fucked.

[Ivan Drago]

Fuck this.

[Skitch]

My god am I glad RT forums are gone. Lord knows what "jokes" I made in my early 20s that I thought were "edgy".

I can't seem to find these tweets of Gunn's. Any one know what he said?

[Watashi]

What he tweeted was gross and indefensible, but Disney was aware of these tweets before and he then apologized.

This has nothing to do what he joked about. This is Disney giving into pressure by alt-right trolls and pizzagate clowns.

[Dukefrukem]

“I like when little boys touch me in my silly place.”

Another: “The best thing about being raped is when you’re done being raped and it’s like ‘whew this feels great, not being raped!’” There were others that made satirical comments about the 9/11 attack, AIDS and the Holocaust

[Lazlo]

My god am I glad RT forums are gone. Lord knows what "jokes" I made in my early 20s that I thought were "edgy".

I can't seem to find these tweets of Gunn's. Any one know what he said?

Alt-right clown posted screenshots of them. (https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1020229342549413890)

Yes, gross and offensive stuff. But it's such a bad faith argument for these jerks to make. They're not offended. They're just trying to "own the libs", which is their sole reason for existing.

[Dukefrukem]

That first tweet was in reference to the Jeepers Creepers director. I guess Gunn walked out of a script read with him and then mocked him on Twitter.

[Grouchy]

They might be tasteless but they're also clearly jokes.

[Skitch]

Alt-right clown posted screenshots of them. (https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1020229342549413890)

Ugh.

But it's such a bad faith argument for these jerks to make. They're not offended. They're just trying to "own the libs", which is their sole reason for existing.
The real difference I see (at least as far as Cernovich is concerned) is that Gunn is failing at humor, while deep diving on Cernovich's twitter has him recalling a real event of sexual misconduct/rape.

Has no one in Hollywood seen a Troma movie?

[Ezee E]

If you become a millionaire, you should delete twitter history, and restart with number one.

[Grouchy]

Someone should tell Disney that Robert Downey Jr. used to snort cocaine ten years ago so they can fire him too.

[Wryan]

It's admittedly a strange place to be in. If you are a prospective candidate for a high-powered, public position, do you just pull out a list of all the stupid shit you've said or done throughout your life so the company knows what to expect if any of it ever comes to light? You're sure to miss certain things, and no one would do this in the first place, nor require it, and it seems odd to be raked over the coals for things far in your past if you've become a different person since then. Having said that, it's not like he was in his early twenties or something when he did this (tho I'm glad he took responsibility for his behavior at the time). It's weird all around.

[Mysterious Dude]

Is it bad that I laughed at most of those tweets?

[Grouchy]

“The best thing about being raped is when you’re done being raped and it’s like ‘whew this feels great, not being raped!’”
This one is admittedly pretty funny.

[Dukefrukem]

Funny thing is, Disney did this to avoid what? I never even saw this dude's tweet until it was confirmed he was fired. Wyran is spot on. Has no one at Disney ever seen a stand up act?

[megladon8]

This is ridiculous.

[Ezee E]

This one is admittedly pretty funny.

Norm MacDonald line if there ever was one.

[TGM]

This is ridiculous.

Absolutely.

[Irish]

You'll hate me, but: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Gunn has always been a schmuck and now it's caught up with him. And in the dumbest possible way.

After Quinn Norton was hired and fired by the NYT in less than 24 hours because of her twitter history, you'd think these idiots would have gotten wise and used something like TweetDelete.net to keep their post count low. Or had an assistant monitor their social media. Or something. But nooooooooo.

Disney has more resolve than just about any for-profit group outside the Russian Fucking Mafia. Bob Iger would rather lose half a billion today than damage the brand tomorrow. It's not surprising they fired Gunn. (Especially when one considers their longer term history; Disney has repeatedly demonstrated no loyalty to talent.)

It's a dirty trick on the part of Posobiec and Cernovich, who are both mouther breathers in their own right. But on balance they're doing the same thing the left does--- pointing out the obvious hypocrisy of entitled idiots.

In case anyone needs it, here's a refresher of nasty shit Gunn said both on his blog and on his twitter account:

https://imgur.com/a/rvbDryr

This stuff would embarrass an edgy 14 year old. Gunn posted it when he was pushing 40. His lame defense about how he's "grown" since 2010 reeks of pure bullshit. (And it always has. He had offer a similar excuse when people called him out years ago for his blog posts.)

[TGM]

I used to make a lot of stupid racy and offensive jokes 10 or so years ago online. I've caught a lot of it and have since deleted it, but I'm almost certain there's still trails somewhere online that I've missed, on forums I don't even remember the names of, assuming they're even still around. These sorts of stories just really keep me overly conscious of this sorta thing though, and second guessing what all I may have posted that someone, somewhere might find particularly offensive for one reason or another down the line, even over a decade since I used to blatantly post offensive stuff, because I was young and dumb and immature, and it was funny to us at that time.

But like, even on my blog or social media and forums posts since, when I'm not trying to be an immature dick and purposefully offend people, I'll think back to times I may have gone on rants or such and think, did I say anything at those times that I may be forgettig about that might come back to haunt me ten years from now? And I dunno, I just think that really sucks.

We've all said or done stupid or dickish things at some point in our past. But so long as it stays there, and we've grown into a better person since then, why should that shit getting dug up be held against our character as it stands today?

[Dead & Messed Up]

The whole thing's a gross and ugly mess.

[Irish]

We've all said or done stupid or dickish things at some point in our past. But so long as it stays there, and we've grown into a better person since then, why should that shit getting dug up be held against our character as it stands today?

That's an interesting question. I think standards will change over generations, ie: a kid in college now will have a different view of this sort of blowback in the decades to come.

But I do think one major difference is in fame and platforms. When you said "stupid or dickish things," were you a 38 year old professional film director, already established with a platform, fans, and followers? Gunn was.

Unlike Quinn Norton, who stupidly tried to use twitter with some nuance, or Joy Ann Reid, who wrote ugly things at the beginning of her career, Gunn was (a) a grown fucking man and (b) already quasi-famous when he spewed this shit, and spewed it repeatedly over a period of time.

To me, that's not one-off bad behavior or a slip of the tongue. It indicates a way of looking at the world.

[Skitch]

Yeah...I think I'm leaning Irish's way. While I agree we've all said dumb shit as the net grew, I'm only now pushing 40 and feel far less afraid about shit I've said in last decade than previous decade, and dont feel (pray memory serves) any of my worst was as bad as Gunn's. Still not sure it was fireable offense tho. You guys see Rosanne's explanation of the tweet that got her fired? That's some batshit clinical insanity right there.

[Peng]

Yeah, I'm not defending Gunn, but the way the Roseanne case is what propels this, gets him an equal punishment, and then the right gloats and makes an equivalence of him and her really rubs me the wrong way. I know Disney doesn't want to appear double standard, but as of this point, Gunn's and Roseanne's actions are not remotely the same even if they happen to be on the same political standing. I mean, how they react to their firing alone... There must be a way to punish Gunn without equating his past but still real wrong and her still actively hateful wrong.

[transmogrifier]

Literally none of those Tweets are funny. I would definitely fire him if he was writing jokes for me for that reason alone.

I mean, Disney can do what they want, but common sense tells me that Gunn's shitty attempt at humor (a) doesn't reflect his actual beliefs, and (b) has no bearing on his ability to churn out acceptable Marvel product, so I probably would have let it ride. Still, if you were happy to see Barr canned, you have to accept cases like this as well. (And vice versa, of course.)

[Grouchy]

In case anyone needs it, here's a refresher of nasty shit Gunn said both on his blog and on his twitter account:

https://imgur.com/a/rvbDryr
I don't understand what's on that link that would make me stop supporting Gunn.

The bottom line here is that I don't want to live on the McCarthy era. I don't think people should be "afraid" (to use TGM's own word) of saying insensitive stuff lest they lose their jobs. That's a shitty world and I want no part of it.

This is really infuriating stuff. I want there to be some kind of consequence that harms Disney for pulling this shit. Maybe if the cast from Guardians chooses to boycott the third installment.

[[ETM]]

I don't think Gunn himself would want that.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

[Grouchy]

Another thing that would be awesome is if DC wised up and hired Gunn to do a L.E.G.I.O.N. film.

[Skitch]

Another thing that would be awesome is if DC wised up and hired Gunn to do a film.

Fixed. I wouldn't be surprised. I don't think this will kill his career, just probably at Disney.

[Grouchy]

Now this (https://www.cbr.com/dave-bautista-cybernazis-james-gunn-firing/?utm_source=CBR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution) is (https://www.cbr.com/dave-bautista-cybernazis-james-gunn-firing/?utm_source=CBR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution) what (https://www.cbr.com/disney-james-gunn-firing-bobcat-goldthwait/?utm_source=CBR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution) I'm talking about. If only the rest of the cast follow Bautista's lead we can beat these assholes.

[Grouchy]

Well, this is slowly getting good (https://www.cbr.com/jim-starlin-james-gunn-firing-bad-call/?utm_source=CBR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution). I think Marvel underestimated the loyalty an artist can create amongst his collaborators and even people who don't directly know him but enjoy his work.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm impressed by how many people have signed this

https://www.change.org/p/marvel-re-hire-james-gunn?recruiter=17215492&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_i nitial...c6rnGlxKQ7KhvMbCP4FQx Q.3&utm_term=psf_combo_share_abi..

[Irish]

I was impressed until I learned Selma Blair and Sarah Silverman tweeted a link to it. Once they did that, naturally every two-bit entertainment outlet "covered" the story.

Some napkin math:

Silverman, Blair, Variety, and Entertainment Weekly each, one way or another, promoted the story. Collectively, they have ~20 million twitter followers. Right now, the petition has about 300,000 signatures. That's a 1.5% response rate, which in other marketing contexts would be low-to-normal. Of course, I don't know the actual reach of those four accounts, so my little percentage is highly theoretical. But I'm also discounting other social media, like Facebook and Reddit, as well as hundreds of individual websites like Slashfilm and Screen Crush.

But it's likely that if you followed the original story, you heard about the petition, i.e.: the message got to the people most likely to act on it. I'd call that a successful campaign.

Meanwhile, on change.org:

There's a petition to give teachers a discount at Amazon.com (https://www.change.org/p/amazon-amazon-prime-discount-for-teachers); one to tell Bank of America not to end their free checking accounts (https://www.change.org/p/tell-bank-of-america-to-not-end-their-free-checking-accounts); another to close a dog racing track in Macau (https://www.change.org/p/chief-executive-chui-sai-on-stop-hundreds-of-greyhounds-from-being-raced-to-death).

Each of them has 300,000 signatures, too.

[Dukefrukem]

Meh, Bank of America has 20 million customers. So that sounds about right.

[Irish]

Let's not forget about the Chinese dogs!

[Grouchy]

I signed that petition and CBR led me to it, not a celebrity instagram or anything.

Besides, so what if it did? The point of these campaigns is, like you say, to reach the maximum amount of people who could support the guy.

[Irish]

My point was more that signatures on an internet petition aren't remarkable, or newsworthy, and even less so when that petition has been highly publicized to a targeted demographic.

So this has been my long winded way of disagreeing with Duke: It's not really impressive at all.

[Grouchy]

What would be really impressive would be if more of the actors of the MCU sided with the guy. Pratt and Saldana supported him somewhat shyly - I hope more people do what Bobcat Goldthwait did and demand Disney remove their performances for the studio.

We need a major player like Robert Downey Jr. to voice his support.

[Irish]

That'll never happen because none of those people want to create career suicide.

I did think it interesting that, outside Bautista and Rooker, major cast members very obviously dodged the question.

[Grouchy]

Yeah. It's really sad but money rules above convictions. Good for Bautista and Rooker.

I just want this betrayal to not be completely free for Disney.

[Irish]

Actors are in a precarious position and they want to protect the jobs they have. Can't blame them. Gunn's old idiocy made it hard to back him and his recent graciousness made it easy to walk away.

As for Disney ... betrayal? Really? Taking Gunn's firing that personally is too extreme.

Disney won't face any repercussions because they understand something the fans don't: That it doesn't matter who directs these movies.

[Dukefrukem]

Aside from losing a talented director, this is the second worst outcome. Dude's a fucking hypocrite.

https://www.thewrap.com/mike-cernovich-who-got-james-gunn-fired-over-rape-tweets-has-history-of-rape-tweets/

[Dukefrukem]

As for Disney ... betrayal? Really? Taking Gunn's firing that personally is too extreme. .

They knew about the tweets before they hired him. Gunn has already apologized once for this.

[Grouchy]

Disney won't face any repercussions because they understand something the fans don't: That it doesn't matter who directs these movies.
Except that it does. You want proof, look at the DC universe. Marvel took a bet on Gunn and Guardians (a bet they were later unwilling to take on Wright and Ant-Man) and it paid off for them. I don't think a generic director like, I dunno, Peyton Reed could have pulled off those movies as well as he did. Do you?

And I don't know how to refer to it other than a betrayal. I'm almost 100% convinced that the pedophilia stuff is a convenient excuse for Disney because they got cold feet on allowing Gunn (or any other star director) too much leverage on the studio. Otherwise the firing makes zero sense, even on this climate. That's a betrayal.

[Watashi]

I'm 99% positive Guardians 3 is not gonna happen anymore.

[Skitch]

I'm 99% positive Guardians 3 is not gonna happen anymore.

That would only happen if part two failed financially. Major studios don't give a damn about anything other than m o n e y.

[Irish]

They knew about the tweets before they hired him. Gunn has already apologized once for this.

Yeaaaaah. Gunn apologized for homophobic blog posts when GLAAD called him out in 2012. That incident had nothing to do with his twitter account.

I'm not convinced Disney knew about his tweets. (Why would they?) I've seen posts elsewhere repeating this claim, and curiously always without support.

But: Let's say they did know. I don't think it matters. They were publicly embarrassed by the alt-right goon squad and didn't have any choice but to fire Gunn.


Except that it does. You want proof, look at the DC universe. Marvel took a bet on Gunn and Guardians (a bet they were later unwilling to take on Wright and Ant-Man) and it paid off for them. I don't think a generic director like, I dunno, Peyton Reed could have pulled off those movies as well as he did. Do you?

DC has a different problem. It isn't that they haven't or can't find good directors. It's that they've never had single, consistent producer working across all their properties. In short: Their ongoing bullshit is because they don't have someone like Kevin Faige.

We can debate the merits of an Edgar Wright over a Peyton Reed or vice versa, but I'm not talking about the kind relative quality that nerds care about.

I'm talking about mass marketability, whether a movie meets a certain commercial baseline so it can be sold in 20,000 theaters across 150 territories. At that level, the director doesn't matter as much as the producer, and anyone competent can get the job done.


I'm almost 100% convinced that the pedophilia stuff is a convenient excuse for Disney because they got cold feet on allowing Gunn (or any other star director) too much leverage on the studio. Otherwise the firing makes zero sense, even on this climate. That's a betrayal.

So it's either a cover-up or a conspiracy? C'mon, dude.

I think you have it the wrong way around. Disney churns through directors like nobody else. Outside the Russos, most people don't last more than 1-2 films. (And that relationship destroys the idea that Disney is worried anyone has "too much leverage.")

ETA: Disney didn't really take a chance on "Guardians." Nicole Perlman (http://time.com/3025421/marvel-movie-female-writer-nicole-perlman/) created the project while working an in-house writer's program. The movie was in development when Gunn was hired.

[Grouchy]

But the only reason why a Guardians of the Galaxy movie has mass marketability is Gunn's writing and direction. Nobody outside hardcore nerds knew those characters. Had the first movie not been surprisingly good there wouldn't be any franchise revolving around them.

Also, I don't think DC just overlooked the need for a Kevin Feige type of producer. I think their mistake was giving that role to Zack Snyder.

I don't think it's a conspiracy. I just think the alt-right attack came at a convenient time for Disney because, like you say, they're used to churning through directors.

[Irish]

But the only reason why a Guardians of the Galaxy movie has mass marketability is Gunn's writing and direction. Nobody outside hardcore nerds knew those characters. Had the first movie not been surprisingly good there wouldn't be any franchise revolving around them.

You mean Gunn's co-writing, right? ;)

The level of discipline exhibited across Marvel movies isn't coming from individual directors. It's coming from Feige. It's not like any of these dudes have script and cast approval or final cut. Disney doesn't cut them a $200 million check, pat them on the back, and yell "Good luck! Let us know how it turns out!"

Fans like to think franchise directors are like Bob Ross standing in front of his easel, talking to himself and chirping away as he paints happy little mountains and trees. But it's more like a kid with a coloring book, kept after class, with the teacher standing over them to make sure they don't color outside the lines.

ETA: Agree with you about Snyder, mostly.

[Dukefrukem]

You mean Gunn's co-writing, right? ;)

You think Perlman had any presence in that final script??

[Grouchy]

I didn't know there was a previous script by Nicole Perlman. That's good to know, but it doesn't make me respect Gunn any less. Yeah, I mean co-writing now that I'm more informed.

I'm not naive about how a studio like Marvel works, man. But I'm betting the reality is more of a compromise between those two situations you're describing. And the reason I'm betting that is that it is possible for a director to put his brand on a big studio movie and we've seen countless examples of it. Iron Man 3 was not a good movie but it was distinctly Shane Black-ish.

You seem to dislike Gunn and you're obviously entitled to dislike anyone you like. But that is leading you to side with right wing buffoons and corporate hypocrisy over an interesting filmmaker being ostracized for no reason.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia there's very little of Perlman's material in the finished film.

[Dukefrukem]

Gunn rewrote the whole movie and because Hollywood is one giant union, she got credit for 2 or 3 drafts she submitted years before Gunn was brought on.

If you want to give co-writing credit for one or two lines of dialog or names of planets that were left in fine. But that movie is 99.99% Gunn.

[Dukefrukem]

Well it's nice to know number8 is reading the site even though he doesn't post. Wonder why doesn't want to join the conversation.

1022219656927608832

[Skitch]

It doesn't matter who wrote the first two films. Disney has the the formula now.

[Irish]

You think Perlman had any presence in that final script??

Based on both films, I'd hazard a guess that the structure, most of the characters, and general plotline all came from Perlman. The awkward backstories and "edgy" humor were definitely Gunn, though.


If you want to give co-writing credit for one or two lines of dialog or names of planets that were left in fine. But that movie is 99.99% Gunn.

That's not how WGA rules work. She literally needed to contribute at least 33% of the final script to get the credit she did. If Gunn really did a page one re-write, as some claimed, it would have gone to arbitration.

The reason this is up for debate amongst fans is because Gunn tacklessly shit on Perlman's contribution while doing press for the first movie. He worked that whole "writer-director" angle to death, and purposefully.

[Irish]

And the reason I'm betting that is that it is possible for a director to put his brand on a big studio movie and we've seen countless examples of it. Iron Man 3 was not a good movie but it was distinctly Shane Black-ish.

I think there's a huge difference between putting your stamp on individual details (dialogue, humor), which can vary from project to project, and the overall approach of these films, which doesn't vary much at all.

Marvel films are nothing if not maddeningly consistent. They've started to get flak for it (and on MatchCut, too).


You seem to dislike Gunn and you're obviously entitled to dislike anyone you like. But that is leading you to side with right wing buffoons and corporate hypocrisy over an interesting filmmaker being ostracized for no reason.

"For some reason." LOL, really?

I've disliked him for a long awhile (although I was a huge fan of "Slither.")

But what I really can't understand why anyone would go to the mat for this guy when he's so thoroughly mediocre. His work isn't that good and, on a personal level, he really comes of like a dick.

Like, if you wanna fight for someone, Jesus, fight for someone who's worth it.

[Grouchy]

Nicole Perlman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Perlman), who was enrolled in Marvel's screenwriting program in 2009,[98] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-Screenplay-99) was offered several of their lesser known properties to base a screenplay on.[99] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-Perlman3-100) Out of those, Perlman chose Dan Abnett (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Abnett) and Andy Lanning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Lanning)'s Guardians of the Galaxy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(2008_ team)), due to her interest in space and science fiction,[99] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-Perlman3-100) adding, "I think [Marvel] were a little taken aback when I chose Guardians, because there were ones that would make a lot more sense if you were a romantic-comedy writer or something like that." Perlman spent two years writing a draft, immersing herself in the Guardians universe, and was asked in late 2011 to create another draft, before Gunn was brought in in early 2012 to contribute to the script.[100] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-Perlman-101) Gunn eventually rewrote the script entirely because "it didn’t work" for him; he would use the film The Dirty Dozen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dirty_Dozen) as a reference to convey his ideas of the film to Marvel.[101] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-2014JulGunn-102) Gunn later explained that Perlman's draft was very different from the script he used during filming, including a different story, character arcs and no Walkman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walkman); he stated, "In Nicole’s script everything is pretty different… it's not about the same stuff. But that's how the WGA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writers_Guild_of_America,_West ) works. They like first writers an awful lot."[102] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-GunnFilmDivider-103) In August 2012, Marvel Studios hired writer Chris McCoy to rewrite Perlman's script,[103] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) #cite_note-2012AugMcCoy-104) however, it is unclear what contribution he had to the final script, since he did not receive production credit.
I don't find anything wrong with the WGA rules keeping Perlman's name on the credits. If you spend two years of your life into a project and then the studio takes it into a different direction, I think you deserve on screen recognition even if most of your ideas were scrapped.

But based on this description, your assumption of bad faith on Gunn's part is pretty much unfounded.

[Grouchy]

His work isn't that good and, on a personal level, he really comes of like a dick.
I guess this is the part I don't understand. He doesn't come off like a dick to me anywhere and never has. He comes off to me as an enthusiastic nerd who hit the jackpot with a little known superhero team. And that's the kind of people I want directing superhero movies because I'm a nerd too.

I really loved Slither too. One great Horror/comedy film will make me warm up to a director. Specially when there's nothing else that will make me dislike him.

[Irish]

If you spend two years of your life into a project and then the studio takes it into a different direction, I think you deserve on screen recognition even if most of your ideas were scrapped.

That's not how WGA rules work, either.

She got a co-writing credit, which is a huge deal, especially for an unknown, first time writer. If she had contributed less to the final draft, she would have been given a "story by" credit. And if she contributed as little as Gunn claims, she wouldn't have received credit at all.

ETA: Writing credits aren't participation trophies. The WGA takes that shit very seriously and they have the final word over who gets what. Screenwriters fight over this shit all the time, and landing in arbitration isn't unusual. That neither the producers nor Gunn tried to remove Perlman from the final credits speaks volumes.

[Grouchy]

Well, is Perlman's original script anywhere online so this discussion can make some sense?

Because otherwise, you're just refusing to believe what the people involved in the writing process tell you because of a personal bias. Or has Perlman actually claimed Gunn was lying about his own contributions?

[Irish]

Because otherwise, you're just refusing to believe what the people involved in the writing process tell you because of a personal bias.

Uh, no. I hate saying shit like this, but: I know people in LA who have gone through this process on feature films. When it happened, I had a front row seat and learned a lot about byzantine WGA rules. I'm not, ya know, reading self-serving statements one party made during softball interviews and extrapolating from there or taking them on faith.

Like, when Gunn claimed "[The WGA] like[s] first writers an awful lot," the co-chair of the WGA came out and directly contradicted him (https://www.ibtimes.com/welcome-gunn-show-how-nicole-perlman-being-written-out-guardians-galaxy-1659036) with, "In the case of an adaptation like 'Guardians,' the rules don't favor the first writer."

Both of those statements are kinda unusual. First, that Gunn tried so hard to kneecap a peer to the press. Second, because WGA dudes don't make public statements about shit like this. It makes everyone look unprofessional.


Or has Perlman actually claimed Gunn was lying about his own contributions?

Perlman was smart enough to keep quiet. Had she done otherwise, she would have fucked her career.

[Grouchy]

Ok, if things went down like you say, this is the first sensible point I've seen raised against Gunn. But again, without reading Perlman's script, who's to say Gunn didn't change it radically?

That article also seems awfully prejudiced. It keeps pushing the point of a "female writer" being tossed aside in Gunn's favor, while I'm pretty sure this sort of stuff happens all the time to people of all genders.

[megladon8]

I’ve never seen anything that made Gunn come across as a dick.

Seems like an incredibly humble and nice guy.

[Irish]

who's to say Gunn didn't change it radically?

The studio and the WGA.

If Gunn did change it radically, then why did the studio submit Perlman as co-writer? If Gunn did a page one rewrite, why wasn't Perlman relegated to a lesser credit or no credit? She was a first timer. And if Gunn believed he was responsible for the entire show, why didn't he contest the credit and ask for arbitration? There would be no reason to award Perlman a high level of credit unless she earned it in pages.

It's a screwy system with the expected level of bullshit and politics, but it's not that screwy.

[Irish]

Anyway, Grouch, Duke --- thanks for responses and allowing me room to get all that out of my system. I've been wanting to spew for the last half-week.

[Dukefrukem]

That's what MC is for :). I learned a lot today about writing credits. I always thought it was something negotiated during production. Thanks for your insight.

[Grouchy]

The studio and the WGA.

If Gunn did change it radically, then why did the studio submit Perlman as co-writer? If Gunn did a page one rewrite, why wasn't Perlman relegated to a lesser credit or no credit? She was a first timer. And if Gunn believed he was responsible for the entire show, why didn't he contest the credit and ask for arbitration? There would be no reason to award Perlman a high level of credit unless she earned it in pages.

It's a screwy system with the expected level of bullshit and politics, but it's not that screwy.
I honestly have no idea. You might be right and Gunn misrepresented his contributions to the script. Or, it might be a case where certain key elements of the story were Perlman's but the whole tone and the cast of characters (there are other members from the Guardians to choose from) were Gunn's so the arbitration was tricky. If you dislike Gunn on the basis of that perceived dishonesty, that's fair enough. It's a valid reason to dislike someone.

Regardless, this completely sidetracks the discussion. Gunn wasn't fired over the first movie's writing credits. He was fired over ten-year-old joke posts, at least that's the official reason. That's part of a ridiculous witch hunt and it's a dangerous precedent because it could happen to any of us in any job. I like to joke about heavy stuff and I don't think I deserve to live in fear because of it.

[Irish]

Regardless, this completely sidetracks the discussion. Gunn wasn't fired over the first movie's writing credits. He was fired over ten-year-old joke posts, at least that's the official reason. That's part of a ridiculous witch hunt and it's a dangerous precedent because it could happen to any of us in any job. I like to joke about heavy stuff and I don't think I deserve to live in fear because of it.

6 year old "jokes," but who's counting? ;)

I think Gunn is full of shit or he's deeply, deeply fucking stupid. The whole cycle of this thing proves one or the other.

But I don't know if his situation sets a precedent. People have been fired for publicly embarrassing their employers online since blogs were first a thing. It's not new and it'll happen again.

[Grouchy]

I think Gunn is full of shit or he's deeply, deeply fucking stupid. The whole cycle of this thing proves one or the other.
Because of the jokes? Because of his response? His reaction was pretty moderate - I would have been furious.


But I don't know if his situation sets a precedent. People have been fired for publicly embarrassing their employers online since blogs were first a thing. It's not new and it'll happen again.
Really? People browsing the internet history of someone looking for weapons for character assassination is a fairly new phenomenon for me. Maybe I've been living under a rock.

[Irish]

Because of the jokes? Because of his response? His reaction was pretty moderate - I would have been furious.

The dude wallowed in rape culture and pedo jokes for years. Even reddit thought it was weird (https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/90ixny/james_gunn_fired_as_director_o f_guardians_of_the/e2qqoug/). It's not easy to defend him on the merits or rationalize what he said. Few do.

Most of his jokes aren't jokes because they have no punchline. They're weird, shocking shit for the sake of being weird, shocking shit. They aren't really "funny" by any wide definition. And they're coming from a guy who was, at the time, a professional writer, and one who still prides himself on his ability.

But let's look at the timeline:

July 2012: Marvel announces "Guardians of the Galaxy" at ComicCon. Gunn had to know he was up for the job, but he's still tweeting "jokes."

September 2012: He gets a job with the world leader in children's entertainment and still thinks publicly making pedophilia jokes is funny. He continues his little twitter hobby for months after he's hired.

November 2012: GLAAD calls him out for material on his blog. He quickly issues a "heartfelt apology": He's not that kind of person, he says. He cares deeply about these issues, he says. He's still learning and growing, he says. But does he reconsider the insane shit he's tweeting? Nope. He keeps right on doing it, even during the same month, and only stops when "Guardians" begins shooting.

October 2017: Bill Cosby is still on trial. The Harvey Weinstein story breaks. #MeToo begins to trend. Does Gunn pause for a second and think, "Shit, man, I publicly tweeted a ton of rape jokes. Maybe I should delete those." Nope. Not even as a mercenary action, as pure CYA. He doesn't do shit.

May 2018: He opines that ABC doesn't need to keep funding "Roseanne" if Barr's words are considered abhorrent.

July 2018: He tells crazed "Star Wars" fans that they should go to therapy.

July, 2018: Alt-right goons dig up his old tweets. Disney immediately fires Gunn, who quickly offers another apology, similarly worded to his last. He's not the kind of person anymore, blah blah. He's growing and learning, blah, blah, blah. And then he finally he deletes 10,000 tweets from his timeline.

So given that sequence of events, either he's really fucking dumb and spent most of his life in a perfectly preserved bubble ... or he knows the score and his lame attempts at earnestness are bullshit.

I don't particularly believe his apologies. What I find more disturbing about his behavior, though, is his demonstrable lack of empathy and imagination. How do you get past 40 --- having grown up in the era he did and having lived in the places he did --- and never connect with a gay person, a rape victim, an incest survivor? Or, I dunno, a woman? On any level that might make you think twice about posting hundreds of shitty jokes to a public forum that literally anyone in the world can read?

How are you so clueless that you get a job with Disney, off all studios --- not Fox, not Sony, but Disney --- and just keep doing it?

How do you consider yourself a creative or an artist yet so obviously lack what would seem to be requirements for that job: Empathy, imagination, and self-awareness?

Or hell, how do you reach your mid-40s and lack basic common sense and a desire for self-preservation?


Really? People browsing the internet history of someone looking for weapons for character assassination is a fairly new phenomenon for me. Maybe I've been living under a rock.

Heh, no. That part is a new gamergate-style wrinkle. I was thinking of cases from the early 2000s where workaday people said or did stupid shit online (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Simonetti) --- in what they thought was a personal space --- and were fired for it.

[Grouchy]

Most of his jokes aren't jokes because they have no punchline. They're weird, shocking shit for the sake of being weird, shocking shit. They aren't really "funny" by any wide definition. And they're coming from a guy who was, at the time, a professional writer, and one who still prides himself on his ability.
Eh, I disagree. They're funny to me. But whatever. I don't find Big Bang Theory funny, but I don't want the show banned because of it.


November 2012: GLAAD calls him out for material on his blog. He quickly issues a "heartfelt apology": He's not that kind of person, he says. He cares deeply about these issues, he says. He's still learning and growing, he says. But does he reconsider the insane shit he's tweeting? Nope. He keeps right on doing it, even during the same month, and only stops when "Guardians" begins shooting.
I don't remember this episode so well, but wasn't it something about a superhero hotness contest? If so, I could never figure out what was wrong with that either.


October 2017: Bill Cosby is still on trial. The Harvey Weinstein story breaks. #MeToo begins to trend. Does Gunn pause for a second and think, "Shit, man, I publicly tweeted a ton of rape jokes. Maybe I should delete those." Nope. Not even as a mercenary action, as pure CYA. He doesn't do shit.
Huh... What? Bill Cosby drugged and raped women. Harvey Weinstein pressured actresses into having sex with him in order to get roles. They both got caught after doing it for decades. What does any of that have to do with Gunn's tweets?


May 2018: He opines that ABC doesn't need to keep funding "Roseanne" if Barr's words are considered abhorrent.
Well, I disagreed with that too. I hate sitcoms but I don't think it's fair for Roseanne to lose her show either. No double standards here.


I don't particularly believe his apologies. What I find more disturbing about his behavior, though, is his demonstrable lack of empathy and imagination. How do you get past 40 --- having grown up in the era he did and having lived in the places he did --- and never connect with a gay person, a rape victim, an incest survivor? Or, I dunno, a woman? On any level that might make you think twice about posting hundreds of shitty jokes to a public forum that literally anyone in the world can read?

How are you so clueless that you get a job with Disney, off all studios --- not Fox, not Sony, but Disney --- and just keep doing it?

How do you consider yourself a creative or an artist yet so obviously lack what would seem to be requirements for that job: Empathy, imagination, and self-awareness?

Or hell, how do you reach your mid-40s and lack basic common sense and a desire for self-preservation?
Well, if I had to publicly apologize after having done nothing wrong and no harm to anyone it might come off as unconvincing too.

Who's to say Gunn doesn't empathize with people? You? Based on shock comedy tweets? In real life I empathize with people on a case-by-case basis. It's like if you asked me: "do you like gay people?" Well, no. I like this gay person. This gay woman is my friend. But I don't like or empathize with large collectives of people I haven't met.

You're basically advocating hypocrisy and calling it maturity.


Heh, no. That part is a new gamergate-style wrinkle. I was thinking of cases from the early 2000s where workaday people said or did stupid shit online (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_Simonetti) --- in what they thought was a personal space --- and were fired for it.
Having read that Ellen Simonetti story I knew nothing about, I empathize with her. She should never have been fired.

[Dukefrukem]

I dont see the difference between jokes on twitter and jokes in a stand up act. The only difference is one is free and the other costs me money. We praise comedians all the time for those kinds of jokes.

[Irish]

Gunn is a comedic writer but he's not a comedian. He doesn't do stand-up and his actions shouldn't be judged by those standards. Stand-up requires wide latitudes because it means working the craft in front of a live audience. That wasn't what Gunn was doing and it was never his intent.

Even if we want to embrace the analogy, this isn't solely about one or two off-color jokes. It's about Gunn's thematic relentlessness. We're talking several hundred tweets about sex with children posted over a period of years.

That's weird. It's fucking creepy. Stack them next to each other, like Cernovich did, and context ceases to matter. The whole thing becomes grotesque.

[Irish]

Huh... What? Bill Cosby drugged and raped women. Harvey Weinstein pressured actresses into having sex with him in order to get roles. They both got caught after doing it for decades. What does any of that have to do with Gunn's tweets?

It's reading the room. Anybody with half a brain would have deleted that shit the day the Weinstein story broke.

Gunn either wasn't smart enough, or didn't care, to see how agitated people were around issues of sexual assault, connect that with his own twitter history, and understand how his "jokes" might eventually come back to bite him in the ass.

I see that as either a lack of empathy or a lack of common sense. And this is a guy who worked in major media for over a decade.


In real life I empathize with people on a case-by-case basis. It's like if you asked me: "do you like gay people?" Well, no. I like this gay person. This gay woman is my friend. But I don't like or empathize with large collectives of people I haven't met.

How exactly does that work? Everybody in your social circle is cool, but everybody else is outta luck? Like, if you personally don't know a disabled person then you don't care about their access to goods, services, and locations?


You're basically advocating hypocrisy and calling it maturity.

How so?

[Grouchy]

It's reading the room. Anybody with half a brain would have deleted that shit the day the Weinstein story broke.

Gunn either wasn't smart enough, or didn't care, to see how agitated people were around issues of sexual assault, connect that with his own twitter history, and understand how his "jokes" might eventually come back to bite him in the ass.

I see that as either a lack of empathy or a lack of common sense. And this is a guy who worked in major media for over a decade.
It might also be that he didn't realize that he could be in danger of anything since he hadn't done anything harmful to anybody. And he really wasn't until a far right extremist used it to damage his career out of spite.

Besides, the connection is feeble at best. Weinstein didn't rape schoolkids, for fuck's sake.


How exactly does that work? Everybody in your social circle is cool, but everybody else is outta luck? Like, if you personally don't know a disabled person then you don't care about their access to goods, services, and locations?
I have no idea how you could have come up with this conclusion from what I wrote. You're assuming that because he makes off color jokes he has never felt a human connection with basically any person that isn't a straight white male. I don't think that's true at all. I have a pretty diverse cast of friends but I didn't bond with them based on that, like if I was putting together a Power Rangers show. There are people I relate to and people I don't relate to and people I realize are awful people even while politically correct horseshit comes out of their mouths on a daily basis.

Being part of a minority group gives you a different, maybe harsher set of experiences but it does not on itself make you a better person. Here's Bill Cosby as proof.


How so?
Well, you're basically saying Gunn should have pretended to have a different, tamer sense of humor to blend in more easily with the blandness and family friendly rethoric of Disney. Never mind that we all know that rethoric itself is hypocritical. But, ironically, it was Gunn's background as a Horror and comedy filmmaker that gave Guardians the edge it had and made it stand out amongst the Marvel universe. Disney employed his talent and then stabbed him on the back because some right-wing nutjob was having a fight with him on Twitter. I don't know how you can possibly spin that into something positive. The only explanation I can find is that you hate his guts because of the screenplay credits thing.

Can you not feel the climate of fear hanging over everyone? How can you not realize how shitty it is? The Dan Harmon thing, now it appears that Rian Johnson deleted his own Twitter account... Blacklisting people left and right is not a healthy way to keep up any work environment. And it's not like women are off the war zone either. There was some ridiculousness calling Lena Dunham a sex offender because of a passage she wrote on her own autobiography.

I don't want the world to turn into a gigantic college safe space because one of the things that keeps drawing me to culture is the diversity of voices and experiences I can incorporate from it. And the Internet Spanish Inquisition can only be harmful to culture and diversity. The whole world can't develop a homogenous, harmless speech. People are too unique for it. If it happens it will be as a result of oppression and fearmongering.

[Wryan]

Didn't Dunham basically admit to sexually assaulting her [sibling?] tho? And then later swatted away criticism as if it was totally ridiculous?

Anyway, I think a big problem with all of this lately is that everyone has their own threshold for this kind of thing, and you simply cannot accommodate everyone's threshold nor set a line that will work for every situation at once, yet you've got people on all sides thinking it's eminently clear where the line is and where it's not. Look at Charlottesville. You would have thought that neo-Nazis gathering in a literal, intentional show of white power (especially one that ended in someone's death and other injuries) would have been a state that fuck-all everyone would have been on board with criticizing, yet even that wasn't the case. Trying to decide if this or that humor or treatment is Not a Big Deal or Out of Line seems to be one of the big new cultural battlegrounds, and people are getting ever more ossified in their stances. Since there's no way to establish a rule that absolutely everyone will agree with (one side says every topic is fair game for humor; one side says no, there is context), it seems we'd just have to approach situations on their own terms each time and determine what's right based on individual context (yet also being aware of larger movements and changes in culture? it's a bit hard).

Something mentioned earlier about humor caught my interest. I think one of the big defenses these days, as to why it's okay to say this or that on such and such platform, is the "stand-up" defense. Comedians do it--why can't I? The problem I see is that stand-up work is performative, whereas sharing a meme on Facebook/Twitter (essentially open to everyone) or a dark joke in your circle of friends (essentially limited to people who know your intentions) is...not, really. I feel it's different and shouldn't be compared directly. I extend more latitude to comedians because they represent a valve release of political, social and cultural tensions that everyone feels now and then but often can't express. They are a way of exploring the issues we feel with ourselves and with one another in a relatively "safe" environment (bit of a loaded word, not meant in quite the "safe space" way)--a way of getting away with it, in a sense. I don't really extend the same latitude to a dude on a street corner tossing out a sexist joke, especially if I don't know him enough to know if there's real malice tucked inside that comment. And that's part of the problem too, knowing the intent of strangers.

[Irish]

It might also be that he didn't realize that he could be in danger of anything since he hadn't done anything harmful to anybody. And he really wasn't until a far right extremist used it to damage his career out of spite.

Besides, the connection is feeble at best. Weinstein didn't rape schoolkids, for fuck's sake.

"Harm" is debatable because I don't know how anyone can think that pumping out this volume of material is purely harmless. And FFS, he also posted a shit ton of pure rape jokes.

Even if Gunn thought it was harmless, how did he not realize how bad it would look? The guy works in media. In Hollywood. He had to have some awareness of PR and bad optics.


I have no idea how you could have come up with this conclusion from what I wrote.

Because you literally said, "I don't like or empathize with large collectives of people I haven't met." I still don't know how that works.

With Gunn, I don't understand how someone could grow up in the middle of the AIDS crisis, live in New York City when ACT UP was at its height, and say shit like, "Laughter is the best medicine. That's why I laugh at people with AIDS" and somehow think it's funny. And I don't understand how someone could, theoretically, have gay friends and think that that sort of humor is harmless.


Well, you're basically saying Gunn should have pretended to have a different, tamer sense of humor to blend in more easily with the blandness and family friendly rethoric of Disney.

Yes. Because anyone who works for a major corporation and is not a complete idiot does that every damned day.

Of course Disney threw him over. Corporations are not people and will never act like people. They have no sense of loyalty. They are not your friend. They'll never behave other than how they do. Anyone who has worked for one and isn't myopic or naive knows this.


I don't want the world to turn into a gigantic college safe space because one of the things that keep drawing me to culture is the diversity of voices and experiences I can incorporate from it.

Why is it too much to ask that grown ass adults don't behave like vile dickheads in public?

[Irish]

Anyway, I think a big problem with all of this lately is that everyone has their own threshold for this kind of thing, and you simply cannot accommodate everyone's threshold nor set a line that will work for every situation at once, yet you've got people on all sides thinking it's eminently clear where the line is and where it's not.

Good post.

I disagree with this chunk right here, though. Because the bar seems to have dropped to the ground doesn't mean reasonable people shouldn't pick it right back up.

Goons carrying torches and chanting "blood and soil" will always be wrong in any context.

[Grouchy]

"Laughter is the best medicine. That's why I laugh at people with AIDS"
See, Wryan is right. My threshold is different than yours. I hadn't read that one, I read it, I chuckled. And you seem to think it's an unforgivable insult or something like that.

I agree stand up comedy is kind of on its own vacuum, first because people usually know what kind of comic they are going to watch and second, because the guy usually leads you towards laughing at horrible things with the entirety of his speech. It's different than an isolated joke sent via Twitter or shared with a group of friends.


Because you literally said, "I don't like or empathize with large collectives of people I haven't met." I still don't know how that works.
It's simple. I think everyone should have the same rights and be judged in the same way regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation / identity, money, beliefs, etc. But I only like individual people I meet and I think anyone who claims to like others is lying.


Yes. Because anyone who works for a major corporation and is not a complete idiot does that every damned day.

Of course Disney threw him over. Corporations are not people and will never act like people. They have no sense of loyalty. They are not your friend. They'll never behave other than how they do. Anyone who has worked for one and isn't myopic or naive knows this.

I agree corporations are not people. Doesn't mean I can't wish they didn't do shitty stuff. I mean, it might be naive to expect Disney to respect its employees, but if we surrender those rights that easily, what's left? It's an exaggerated example, but after all, why are we complaining that Monsanto sprays agrochemicals that harm people? It's a corporation. What do you expect?

[Grouchy]

Didn't Dunham basically admit to sexually assaulting her [sibling?] tho? And then later swatted away criticism as if it was totally ridiculous?
She basically said that at age 7 she was morbidly fascinated by the vagina of her 1-year-old sister and often touched it. She was 7 goddamn years old. Anyone who calls her a sexual abuser because of that has mental issues of his own, I think.

[Irish]

See, Wryan is right. My threshold is different than yours. I hadn't read that one, I read it, I chuckled. And you seem to think it's an unforgivable insult or something like that.

I don't think it's an insult. I think it's in bad taste. I think it's juvenile. That it tries to hard. I think, for a joke, it has poor construction. It's bad writing.

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.


It's simple. I think everyone should have the same rights and be judged in the same way regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation / identity, money, beliefs, etc.

But you don't really believe this, right? Because how does it translate into practice, if ever?

In any social discussion, you take the most extreme, conservative position possible and you defend the status quo regardless of what it is. (Here, you're literally the only person I've seen online who's backed Gunn on the merits of his tweets. Even reddit superfans didn't do that.)

Part of the problem with "everybody should be treated the same," blindly, is that it doesn't address existing imbalances; the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. (One can also twist it, easily, into odious constructs like "separate but equal.")

Adamantly defending the status quo mean the status quo never changes, and in practical terms it means you don't believe in social change. "Everyone should be treated equally" then becomes an empty expression.


But I only like individual people I meet and I think anyone who claims to like others is lying.

I'm not talking about liking someone on a personal level. I'm talking about the ability to empathize with a given group. I've never met a Somalian but that doesn't prohibit me from empathizing with their plight, either at home or abroad. I don't need to like an individual to feel for them.

So I don't know what you mean by "I think anyone who claims to like others is lying."


I mean, it might be naive to expect Disney to respect its employees, but if we surrender those rights that easily, what's left?

Oh, collectively we surrendered those rights long ago, before either you or I were born. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable but changing this would require changing American culture from the ground up. It'd mean challenging the status quo.

But it's curious to me that you demand Disney respect its employees but you'd never ask Gunn, as an artist or celebrity, to respect anyone at all.

[Grouchy]

I don't think it's an insult. I think it's in bad taste. I think it's juvenile. That it tries to hard. I think, for a joke, it has poor construction. It's bad writing.

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.
I never claimed a general empathy. It's also hard to explain a taste for comedy. It's why I don't find comedians like Cosby, Gervais or Fallon funny even though I realize they're objectively good.



But you don't really believe this, right? Because how does it translate into practice, if ever?

In any social discussion, you take the most extreme, conservative position possible and you defend the status quo regardless of what it is. (Here, you're literally the only person I've seen online who's backed Gunn on the merits of his tweets. Even reddit superfans didn't do that.)
That's not true at all and it's a ridiculous accusation. It would mean a search through my posts similar to what the alt-right guy did to Gunn, but you can find me voicing opinions about US foreign policy, economics, History and even film itself that are far from conservative or defensive of the status quo. If you can't appreciate any stand that's not a dichotomy between conservative and progressive that's not really my fault.


Part of the problem with "everybody should be treated the same," blindly, is that it doesn't address existing imbalances; the people at the bottom stay at the bottom. (One can also twist it, easily, into odious constructs like "separate but equal.")

Adamantly defending the status quo mean the status quo never changes, and in practical terms it means you don't believe in social change. "Everyone should be treated equally" then becomes an empty expression.
You're completely right here. The only reason I said that was because you'd previously accused me of not caring about the rights of people I haven't met personally by blatantly twisting my words.

Of course, by painting me as a constant defender of the status quo you're also lying to make me look bad.


I'm not talking about liking someone on a personal level. I'm talking about the ability to empathize with a given group. I've never met a Somalian but that doesn't prohibit me from empathizing with their plight, either at home or abroad. I don't need to like an individual to feel for them.

So I don't know what you mean by "I think anyone who claims to like others is lying."
I mean that the state of the culture nowadays forces people to express empathy in a compulsive, obviously fake manner. I mean, I'm not any sort of well known artist or public figure, but I run a film club on Tuesdays and I encountered a lot of scrutiny from the owners of the bar about the movies I show. Whether this one could be seen as sexist or offensive, or whether this one's themes are too strong, etc. It's exhausting and it forces people to tip toe around life like it's a minefield.


Oh, collectively we surrendered those rights long ago, before either you or I were born. That doesn't mean they aren't valuable but changing this would require changing American culture from the ground up. It'd mean challenging the status quo.

But it's curious to me that you demand Disney respect its employees but you'd never ask Gunn, as an artist or celebrity, to respect anyone at all.
Because it's humor, Irish. The offence is the point. None could look at the stuff Gunn posted and ask themselves if he's serious, which is why firing him is such a dick move.

[Grouchy]

Regarding this film club thing, something funny happened recently. The spot is called Kowalski's Bar because of Stanley Kowalski from A Streetcar Named Desire. There used to be a photo of the character but they took it down. I didn't think anything of it at the moment, just that they were changing decoration.

One day they interviewed me on video about the film club. And the girl who interviewed me asked me about the name of the bar, and I said it was because of the play and the Kazan film. At this moment the owner of the bar (a lesbian, by the way, and the person who had named it) burst in interrupting the interview, saying some bullshit about Kowalski being a painter she knew and asking to move on to the next question.

I was left very confused and when I asked her about it afterwards she said they were moving away from the homage to Stanley Kowalski because he was a bad example, violent towards women and so on.

This is just but one example of how depressing and hypocritical the world is getting.

[Irish]

I never claimed a general empathy. It's also hard to explain a taste for comedy. It's why I don't find comedians like Cosby, Gervais or Fallon funny even though I realize they're objectively good.

Gunn isn't a comedian. Most of your argument here seems like a more complicated version of "it's just a joke."


That's not true at all and it's a ridiculous accusation. It would mean a search through my posts similar to what the alt-right guy did to Gunn, but you can find me voicing opinions about US foreign policy, economics, History and even film itself that are far from conservative or defensive of the status quo. If you can't appreciate any stand that's not a dichotomy between conservative and progressive that's not really my fault.

I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything and I wasn't deliberately twisting your words. I was trying to parse out what you actually meant.


Of course, by painting me as a constant defender of the status quo you're also lying to make me look bad.

Oh, fuck off. Calling me a liar is a bad faith assumption and I resent it.

I wasn't talking about discussions of foreign policy or history. I was talking about discussions around social issues. (Eg: that long back and forth between you, me, and number8 about Hank Azaria, Apu, and The Simpsons.)

I don't think you can legitimately deny that you're conservative around issues of race, class, gender, or sexuality and how they're represented in media. Your basic stance seems to be that everything should be allowable under any circumstance, and you've repeatedly expressed confusion as to why anyone would think differently, regardless of larger contexts. Such a stance just so happens to align with the status quo, so whether you realize it or not, that's what you're defending.


I mean that the state of the culture nowadays forces people to express empathy in a compulsive, obviously fake manner. I mean, I'm not any sort of well known artist or public figure, but I run a film club on Tuesdays and I encountered a lot of scrutiny from the owners of the bar about the movies I show. Whether this one could be seen as sexist or offensive, or whether this one's themes are too strong, etc. It's exhausting and it forces people to tip toe around life like it's a minefield.

On one hand, I agree. On the other, I don't think it's a huge fucking burden to pause and consider other viewpoints, ie: how outsiders might interpret or react to something attempting to be "edgy."


Because it's humor, Irish. The offence is the point. None could look at the stuff Gunn posted and ask themselves if he's serious, which is why firing him is such a dick move.

No one thought he was serious. That was never the point.

[Grouchy]

Gunn isn't a comedian. Most of your argument here seems like a more complicated version of "it's just a joke."
Well... Yeah, that's it. I don't think jokes should get people fired from jobs.


wasn't trying to accuse you of anything and I wasn't deliberately twisting your words. I was trying to parse out what you actually meant.

Oh, fuck off. Calling me a liar is a bad faith assumption and I resent it.

I wasn't talking about discussions of foreign policy or history. I was talking about discussions around social issues. (Eg: that long back and forth between you, me, and number8 about Hank Azaria, Apu, and The Simpsons.)

I don't think you can legitimately deny that you're conservative around issues of race, class, gender, or sexuality and how they're represented in media. Your basic stance seems to be that everything should be allowable under any circumstance, and you've repeatedly expressed confusion as to why anyone would think differently, regardless of larger contexts. Such a stance just so happens to align with the status quo, so whether you realize it or not, that's what you're defending.
If I remember correctly, though, you guys made me change my mind about the Apu thing. Maybe I didn't phrase it like that but I got some new and interesting viewpoints out of that conversation. That isn't happening in this one, but I'm not some kind of cranky defender of old values and I appreciate discussing stuff with you or 8. I'm not closed to learning new things or seeing stuff in a different light.

You're right that I repeteadly defend movies, comics or shows against accusations of racism or sexism. But again, I do that when I think the accusation is unfair. Few people have pointed out that there's a very sexist message near the end of Once Upon a Time in the West, one of my favorite movies, when Cheyenne (the Jason Robards character) advises Jill (Claudia Cardinale) to ignore one of the train workers when he caresses her ass. The way that speech is framed makes it look like it's a message that comes directly from the filmmaker. I realize that's sexist and I wouldn't defend it even though the movie as a whole is very good.

Other times, though, I think political correctness works as censorship and not at all different from the Hays Code or any other puritan endeavor. Like when they were bashing a Batgirl issue because the villain was a transvestite. Like the only correct way to portray transgender people is in a positive light. That's bullshit.

[transmogrifier]

But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

This here makes absolutely no sense to me at all. You are essentially saying that to be a good person, there are some groups of people that are simply not allowed to be the subject of a joke? Otherwise, I really don't get it.

Different versions of the joke:

Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who are sick.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people with a headcold.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have atopic dermatitis.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have cancer.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have AIDS.

The entire joke is predicated on the misunderstanding of the idiom. The choice of the group at the end has some importance to the overall joke because the more sensitive/serious the disease, the greater the discrepancy between good intentions and horrendous results. That's the entire joke. To turn around and claim that you lack general empathy if you laugh at the joke because AIDS is used as the punchline to me shows zero understanding of how humor works.

[Irish]

Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who are sick.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people with a headcold.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have atopic dermatitis.
Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have cancer.

^ Not part of a historically oppressed class.


Some say laughter is the best medicine. This is why I only laugh at people who have AIDS.

^ Part of a historically oppressed class. (At least, potentially)

I guess we could turn the thread into a comedy workshop, but whether these "jokes" were funny wasn't, largely, my point.

[transmogrifier]

So you're saying to be a good person we need general empathy for historically oppressed classes, but we don't need empathy for people with cancer (for example)?

Because I still for the life of me cannot figure out this claim:



But I'm mystified that anyone can claim a general empathy and then turn around and also say it's funny.

EDIT: I will add that I am not arguing that you should find the joke funny, because all humor is subjective. But I don't think you should be making generalizations about the character of those who do find it funny given the nature of how the joke is constructed.

[Irish]

So you're saying to be a good person we need general empathy for historically oppressed classes, but we don't need empathy for people with cancer (for example)?

No, that's not what I'm saying.

[Grouchy]

Hey I'm sorry I called you a liar. I kind of got "offended" because I sensed like you painted me as some right wing troll defending traditional values and such.

[Dukefrukem]

That was fun to read.

And a new rumor today suggests Fox may scrap both New Mutants and Dark Phoenix.

[TGM]

That was fun to read.

And a new rumor today suggests Fox may scrap both New Mutants and Dark Phoenix.
I hope that really is just rumor. :(

[Ezee E]

Isn't New Mutants already completed? Or is the idea to restart everything/

[TGM]

Isn't New Mutants already completed? Or is the idea to restart everything/

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

[Irish]

Hey I'm sorry I called you a liar. I kind of got "offended" because I sensed like you painted me as some right wing troll defending traditional values and such.

Thanks, Grouchy. I appreciate that.

[megladon8]

I think it’s a very slippery slope to fire someone over an offensive joke.

Even putting aside the changing moral compass of the times, whose tastes decide what is fireable? What is worth just a reprimand?

Some of the stuff Seth MacFarlane has said and gotten away with is very similar to stuff Gunn got canned for, but MacFarlane’s career has never been in question. I mean, he has a regularly recurring character whose entire schtick is that he’s a pedophile and constantly tries to get Chris to “eat his popsicle”.

I mean, Disney can do what they want. But it’s worisome.

[Dukefrukem]

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

Pretty much this. And now the delay has caused Disney execs to get involved- and decide whether the movie will hurt the X-Men brand enough, where they wouldn't want to release it at all. Sounds like they really want to fast track the X-Men into the MCU.

Dark Phoenix is getting screened by Disney execs too, and the word is it's another step down from Apocalypse.

[Dukefrukem]

It's semi-officially official. Just need Gov approval now. I'm 100% on board ditching Netflix in favor of a Disney streaming service that allows me access to the Simpsons, the MCU, Star Wars, Alien, Pixar, Indy, Avatar Sequels....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shareholders-approve-disneys-acquisition-of-fox-entertainment-assets-1532701190?mod=hp_lead_pos2

[Grouchy]

After Apocalypse I don't really care about Dark Phoenix but New Mutants at least looked like something different.

As per the other subject, good ol' Lloyd thinks the same as me:


If Disney wants to kick somebody else out, they should look at their own movies, their sexist, racist movies that have influenced an entire generation of Americans. Why do we have so much racism and sexism? It may well have to do with the Disney movies. So maybe Disney [you] should fire yourselves.

[Irish]

Even putting aside the changing moral compass of the times, whose tastes decide what is fireable?

Apparently, Bob Iger's.


What is worth just a reprimand?

Behavior that makes your coworkers complain but isn't bad enough to leak to the media.


Some of the stuff Seth MacFarlane has said and gotten away with is very similar to stuff Gunn got canned for, but MacFarlane’s career has never been in question.

The context around a minor character on a shitty cartoon is different than the one around Gunn's tweets.


As per the other subject, good ol' Lloyd thinks the same as me:

Lloyd is too dumb to realize that he's just argued movie studios should be held morally responsible for the work they release. This, coming from the founder of Troma.

[Ezee E]

It was completed, and ready to be released, but then with only about a month to go before release, they decided to reshoot a lot of it to really improve on the horror aspect, which in turn got it delayed by a year and a half.

Damn. I hope I get to see it. Looked good.

[Grouchy]

Lloyd is too dumb to realize that he's just argued movie studios should be held morally responsible for the work they release. This, coming from the founder of Troma.
Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

[transmogrifier]

Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

You really have to give up with Irish; his heart is in the right place, but his sense of context and logic is not.

[Irish]

Damn, man. Did Troma release films with blatant racial stereotypes in the 1940s? I thought their stuff was pretty self-aware.

The biggest defense of Gunn is around time and context: The tweets are old and he's changed since he made them.

If you believe time and context are relevant, then they should be relevant for Disney, too. Bringing up old films ignores the obvious: That social standards progressed, that the people who produced these films are long gone, that Disney is a different company today than it was 70 years ago (quite literally, in terms of manpower; no one who worked on "Song of the South" is still working at Disney).

That Disney buried "Song of the South" in the U.S. but continues to make it available in other countries does make them massive hypocrites, or at the very least sleazy opportunists. (That's not, strictly, the argument that Kaufman made, though.)

But this isn't zero sum, either. Even if Disney is still a terrible company, their being so doesn't automatically excuse Gunn's behavior. Disney's wrongs don't make Gunn somehow right. It's possible to demand they they both be held responsible for their actions.

It's also ridiculous to suggest, as Kaufman does, that issues of race and gender are solely Disney's responsibility. The man is standing in an enormous glass house, and one located in a country made of glass.


You really have to give up with Irish; his heart is in the right place, but his sense of context and logic is not.

Try harder. It's a bit early for you to need passive aggressive insults in a vain attempt to score points, trans.

[transmogrifier]

Well, I asked you what you meant by an earlier comment, and you never bothered to explain, so here we are.

[Irish]

Well, I asked you what you meant by an earlier comment, and you never bothered to explain, so here we are.

For a guy who is quick to throw around "logic," that makes no sense. I don't respond to your liking, so you're free to insult me?

[transmogrifier]

For a guy who is quick to throw around "logic," that makes no sense. I don't respond to your liking, so you're free to insult me?

I make no claims that the former justifies the latter. I was just pointing out that you can’t get pissy at me for making broad general claims about your arguing subject/style when you totally ignored me addressing you on specifics before that.

So let’s just leave it here. You and I are best served ignoring each other on pretty much any subject it seems.

[Irish]

I was just pointing out that you can’t get pissy at me for making broad general claims about your arguing subject/style when you totally ignored me addressing you on specifics before that.

Yeaaaaaah. That still doesn't make sense. Partly because that's not what you did and that's not how I reacted.

But mostly because I don't owe you any specific reply, trans, just because we're on a message board.


So let’s just leave it here. You and I are best served ignoring each other on pretty much any subject it seems.

Lol. I didn't start this party. You did. You obviously wanted attention. I gave it to you. Don't cry about it now, dude.

[transmogrifier]

Oh yes, the prospect of not getting into petty arguments with you has me in floods. I’m not sure I’ll cope.

[Irish]

Oh yes, the prospect of not getting into petty arguments with you has me in floods. I’m not sure I’ll cope.

BREAKING: Area man regrets petty arguments after starting a petty argument

"I don't understand why people won't respond in good faith after I casually toss out obnoxious ad-hominems on the internet," says Matchcut poster transmogrifier. "It really is quite a vexing mystery," he added, after considerable thought and drooling slightly into his porridge, which his mother made him for lunch.

[Watashi]

As the only Match Cutee who is an employee of The Walt Disney Company, I find all this back and forth banter entertaining and also troubling.

Also judging from my posts 10 years ago (hell 10 months ago), it's a good thing my employer does not read these forums.

[megladon8]

Irish do you never notice that like 99.9% of all heated exchanges on here have you at the center of them?

You always blame it on everyone else, but never see the common denominator.


Edit: and I say this as someone who likes you a lot and values your posts here. It’s just concerning that you don’t see how confrontational you yourself can be.

[transmogrifier]

To be fair, I started this one

[Irish]

Irish do you never notice that like 99.9% of all heated exchanges on here have you at the center of them?

Wow. Seriously, dude?


It’s just concerning that you don’t see how confrontational you yourself can be.

I do so appreciate your concern (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern%20trol l), meg. Really do.

[megladon8]

Cool glad you took that well.

[Irish]

Cool glad you took that well.

Uh, yeah. How did you expect me to take it? (I'm just so volatile, meg! I'm all over the board! Causing a ruckus! Being unruly!)

I don't really appreciate your tone policing (which you've done since I start posting here), nor your passive aggressive condensation masked as concern, nor your publicly taking me to task for arguments I didn't start.

If you prefer, we can go back to uselessly ranking the same studio directors over and over again, making dead-ended posts about blockbusters nobody cares about, endlessly parsing inane details about MoviePass and Netflix, and never saying anything that would cause anyone to twitch with thought.

Happy now?

[Dukefrukem]

The cast came together for a joint statement on Gunn

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl3OVfeF8Dc/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_sta te_control

Chris Pratt: Although I don’t support James Gunn’s inappropriate jokes from years ago, he is a good man. I’d personally love to see him reinstated as director of Volume 3. If you please, read the following statement- signed by our entire cast.

[megladon8]

I doubt Disney will listen or change their stance. That would be an even bigger PR nightmare in the making.

[Ezee E]

Probably not, but he'll at least have a career after this. Disney rehiring him would make them appear weak.

Plus, in the end, this whole thing is already figured out anyway.

[megladon8]

Will he, though?

GotG were kind of against type for him, in that he’s never done “big” movies before.

Unless he’s made enough money to independently finance stuff, I don’t see any studios really wanting to touch him. He wasn’t a studio guy to begin with.

I predict another indie or two and then we don’t hear much from him again.

[Irish]

Gunn is reportedly worth $40 million. He'll be fine. I wouldn't be surprised if he does something for Blumhouse or Amazon in a year or two.

All Disney has to do is wait out a couple of news cycles and announce a new director.

I'm genuinely surprised at that cast announcement, though. It's a helluva spin.

Now I'm wondering if this'll delay "Guardians 3" from 2020.

[Grouchy]

I do hope they lose this franchise. I mean, that statement is a step in the right direction but too timid. Bautista and Rooker certainly seemed more assertive.

At the very least I hope they have to go through the embarassment of re-casting Drax.

EDIT: They took ten days to "pray"? Pray for what?

[megladon8]

Gunn is reportedly worth $40 million. He'll be fine. I wouldn't be surprised if he does something for Blumhouse or Amazon in a year or two.

All Disney has to do is wait out a couple of news cycles and announce a new director.

I'm genuinely surprised at that cast announcement, though. It's a helluva spin.

Now I'm wondering if this'll delay "Guardians 3" from 2020.

Do you think there’s a chance it just might not happen at all? Guardians 3, I mean.

If the cast and associated people put up this much fuss maybe they will just cut it out of the plan for the time being?

[megladon8]

Uh, yeah. How did you expect me to take it? (I'm just so volatile, meg! I'm all over the board! Causing a ruckus! Being unruly!)

I don't really appreciate your tone policing (which you've done since I start posting here), nor your passive aggressive condensation masked as concern, nor your publicly taking me to task for arguments I didn't start.

If you prefer, we can go back to uselessly ranking the same studio directors over and over again, making dead-ended posts about blockbusters nobody cares about, endlessly parsing inane details about MoviePass and Netflix, and never saying anything that would cause anyone to twitch with thought.

Happy now?


I apologize, Irish. I truly wasn’t intending to be a dick or passive aggressive in any way. But what I intended versus what came out were very different.

Sincerely sorry.

[Irish]

EDIT: They took ten days to "pray"? Pray for what?

Figure 9 actors, each with a manager, an agent, and maybe a publicist. That's ~35 people with input into a 300 word statement. 10 days is a pretty quick turnaround.

[Irish]

I apologize, Irish. I truly wasn’t intending to be a dick or passive aggressive in any way. But what I intended versus what came out were very different.

Sincerely sorry.

Don't know how to respond to that but I appreciate the sentiment.

[Dukefrukem]

"Sources say there has been a growing feeling that Gunn could be reinstated..."

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-cast-james-gunn-support-1202889736/

[Wryan]

Well this continues to look weird as hell.

Some spoilers, btw, especially concerning what looks like the "final fight."


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLCn88bfW1o

[Dukefrukem]

Has this been confirmed to be rated R?

[transmogrifier]

So much of the non-action scenes look so clumsy and amateurish, and Hardy looks super-uncomfortable.

[megladon8]

That is some rough looking CGI.

And I love that Hardy has pigeonholed himself as “comic book character you can’t understand”.

[Grouchy]

And I love that Hardy has pigeonholed himself as “comic book character you can’t understand”.
Hahahah he's truly cornering the market there.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I just figure every Tom Hardy casting session goes like this:

Tom: "Would my character have a fucking weird voice?"

Agent: "No."

Tom: "..."

Agent: "..."

Tom: "...could he?"

[Irish]

Trailer makes this look Spawn- / Ghost Rider-level bad.

I don't mind Hardy as much as I mind the directors who let him go apeshit within his role.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh it looks off.

https://i1.wp.com/bloody-disgusting.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Screen-Shot-2018-07-31-at-8.42.45-AM.png?resize=740%2C308&ssl=1

[Dukefrukem]

https://giphy.com/gifs/venom-1O1aNqDsai2aCyV8n6?utm_source= iframe&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=Embeds&utm_term=https%3A%2F%2Fbloody-disgusting.com%2Fmovie%2F35130 05%2Fglorious-symbiote-shots-latest-venom-trailer%2F

[Wryan]

Another Marvel Civil War brewing as Hemsworth and Evans unfollow James Gunn on Twitter.

"Whose Side Are You On?"

[Skitch]

My biggest "Huh?" about that trailer is it looks like the symbiote snaps his body back together after he wrecks his motorcycle? Since when did Venom have healing abilities? And just because you smoosh bones back together doesn't mean healed so, huh? Trailer sure makes it seem like Eddie is kidnapped and not half of a whole. All speculation.

[Irish]

Another Marvel Civil War brewing as Hemsworth and Evans unfollow James Gunn on Twitter.

This is like Kardashian or RHONY drama, but for comic book nerds

[megladon8]

It’s almost like they wanted to make a movie of The Darkness, and just slapped the Venom brand on it.

[Dukefrukem]

Marvel today officially released the after credits scene from Avengers: Infinity War

and the logo for Spider-man: Far from Home


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS3k6VLcrM8

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DjhqH3PU8AEXTHW.jpg

[Grouchy]

It might sound silly but the Gunn Civil War has significantly dampened my nerdgasm enthusiasm for these movies.

[Dukefrukem]

It might sound silly but the Gunn Civil War has significantly dampened my nerdgasm enthusiasm for these movies.

Nope. Same feeling here.

[Wryan]

It might sound silly but the Gunn Civil War has significantly dampened my nerdgasm enthusiasm for these movies.

trans will be pleased to hear this!

[Wryan]

Oh shit! I was duped. Evans echoed something Cheadle said on Twitter basically saying the reports he had unfollowed Gunn were incorrect. Dunno about Hemsworth.

We need a scorecard for this shit. Finally, a reason to express dismay that the cast is so large--finally.

[Milky Joe]

I thought Gunn was an insufferable prick long before any of these tweets were released. So I'm not really bothered by any of it.

[Ezee E]

I wonder if there will be any Netflix TV Show that takes place after the Thanos Snap.

[megladon8]

I thought Gunn was an insufferable prick long before any of these tweets were released. So I'm not really bothered by any of it.

Why did you think that?

Just find it puzzling because I’ve not seen anything at all that indicate this.

Seems like a very humble and nice person, and very in touch with his fans.

[Skitch]

I wonder if there will be any Netflix TV Show that takes place after the Thanos Snap.

Since that will inevitably be undone, I'd guess no.

[Ezee E]

Since that will inevitably be undone, I'd guess no.

Bummer. Wasted opportunity.

Heck, with all the disasters that occur in these big cities, you'd think there'd be some new city people would flock to. Like Harrisburg suddenly gets overpopulated.

[megladon8]

I hope at some point Eddie Brock is having one of his articles reviewed by an editor, something Brock is passionately angry about, and the editor says something like

“Eddie, you gotta calm down. You can’t just use our paper to spew venom like this.”

Then Eddie looks directly into the camera, half of his face dons the symbiote, and it winks.

[Milky Joe]

Why did you think that?

Just find it puzzling because I’ve not seen anything at all that indicate this.

Seems like a very humble and nice person, and very in touch with his fans.

not on twitter anyway, where every swinging dick with a studio contract thinks they're god's personal gift to political discourse. Gunn was the worst of all in this regard. Constant, unremittent bloviating.

[Ezee E]

not on twitter anyway, where every swinging dick with a studio contract thinks they're god's personal gift to political discourse. Gunn was the worst of all in this regard. Constant, unremittent bloviating.

Oi, there's quite a few like that.

[Grouchy]

Eh, everyone has an opinion on the internet. I don't see why people who direct superhero flicks for money can't have one.

I don't have Twitter, though, so no idea if it's that irritating.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Eh, everyone has an opinion on the internet. I don't see why people who direct superhero flicks for money can't have one.

I don't have Twitter, though, so no idea if it's that irritating.

You can choose who to follow, unfollow, and block, so I'm not sure why it's an issue.

[Skitch]

You can choose who to follow, unfollow, and block, so I'm not sure why it's an issue.

Ditto social media in general. I get frustrated with friends who say things like "ugh Twitter/facebook just pisses me off" and stuff. Um, YOU decide what your feed looks like. Block, unfollow, ban. Do what you have to make your feed. I sure do. I have banned relatives for fucks sake. All social is what YOU choose to allow. I shape mine to be heavy art and positive think.

Edit: and I dont just mean people that agree with my point of view. I have plenty of Trumpies. But the only ones that stay followed can speak respectfully.

[Irish]

You can choose who to follow, unfollow, and block, so I'm not sure why it's an issue.

Yeah... but not really?

Twitter buries its moderation tools in submenus, some of those tools aren't evenly distributed across the platform, and because social media lives and dies by MAUs and "engagement," Twitter regularly subverts their user's control of the feed.

Which means if I follow somebody who follows Gunn, there's a good chance I'll see his tweets whether I want to or not. As a one-off, that's not a big deal. But after 2015-16, when the entire platform went insane, constantly locking down your feed down and curating the experience --- either manually or through third party apps --- became a serious chore.

[megladon8]

I have never had Twitter so I didn’t know about his douchery on there.

But both my wife and I had him on FB for several years before he closed his account. He was always interacting with fans, sharing fun stories and photos, and had zero tolerance for bullying or hate speech at all. If you posted anything derogatory towards another user (or anyone) he instantly deleted you.

He also didn’t tolerate people saying anything personal about others in the industry. Criticize their work (or his) as much as you want but if you started making personal insults or namecaling again he instantly deleted you.

So from that view he seemed like a decent guy.

Also always appreciated how he championed the underdog and preached that you don’t NEED to “be somebody” to make it in Hollywood, as he didn’t know anyone or have any famous relatives or whatever. Was very open that he owed everything to Troma, and he got there through hard work.

[Grouchy]

Bautista is the man (https://www.cbr.com/dave-bautista-quit-gotg-james-gunn-script/?utm_source=CBR-FB-P&utm_medium=Social-Distribution).

Also, this quote made me laugh:


“I spoke to Chris Pratt the day after it happened and he’s a bit religious, so he wanted time to pray and figure it out, but I was more like: ‘F*ck this. This is bullshit. James is one of the kindest, most decent people I’ve met.’”

[Dukefrukem]

Let's see where that goes!

[Irish]

Nowhere. It'll go nowhere.

(Bautista has no leverage. All he's doing is riling the fans and hurting his own career.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

So Bautista's downgraded from "Not without Gunn!" to "Not without Gunn's script!" I expect a further downgrade to "Not without Gunn's story idea" and finally "Not without Gunn's blessing!" Which Gunn will provide.

[Wryan]

Not without Gunn's semaphore signals from the 5-square-foot tropical isle where Disney stuck him!

[Irish]

LEAKED: Drax's only scene in GotG3




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5k8ZQsZJpk

[Ezee E]

Forgot. Did Drax turn into spacedust?

[Dukefrukem]

Forgot. Did Drax turn into spacedust?

Yes.

[Grouchy]

Nowhere. It'll go nowhere.

(Bautista has no leverage. All he's doing is riling the fans and hurting his own career.)
Well, at the very least he gains credit as a wholesome, honest and brave person. So do Saldana, Rooker and Russell. The guy who goes to pray in the face of obvious injustice... not so much.

I laughed at the Simpsons clip, though.

[megladon8]

Has been strange reading / hearing about Pratt being religious.

Doesn’t strike me that way at all.

[Skitch]

Really? Hes been very vocal about it.

[megladon8]

Really? Hes been very vocal about it.

I guess it shows how out of touch I am with a lot of the celeb gossip these days.

Is it a new thing for him or has he always been religious?

[Skitch]

Always, as far as I know.

[Dukefrukem]

Nick Fury and Maria Hill Will Appear in Spider-Man: Far From Home. Nice.

[Dukefrukem]

Sucks if we don't get Adam Warlock...

1027141171460616192

[Irish]

lol "Co-Founder and Editor-In-Chief of @OmegaUGround"

c'mon

[Milky Joe]

They will, they won't, they will, they won't, they will...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/marvel-may-use-james-gunns-script-for-guardians-of-the-1828199473

[Dukefrukem]

There's also a report saying though Gunn won't direct GotGv3, he may direct another Marvel movie down the road...

So in short, let's just wait for the official Disney statement.

[Skitch]

So in short, let's just wait for the official Disney statement.

Indeed. Do you think he'd go back to them though after this? I hear the other big studios are throwing offers his way...

[Dukefrukem]

Indeed. Do you think he'd go back to them though after this? I hear the other big studios are throwing offers his way...

I think he grew up on these Marvel characters, so maybe there was some deal saying, look, we'll take you off GotG3, but we'll let you do anything in 5 years when the heat dies off?

[Dukefrukem]

Nowhere. It'll go nowhere.

(Bautista has no leverage. All he's doing is riling the fans and hurting his own career.)

Well something happened somewhere!

Possible Reprieve On James Gunn & ‘Guardians’ As Marvel Back Channels With Disney? (https://deadline.com/2018/08/james-gunn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-marvel-studios-disney-eleventh-hour-save-attempt-1202443199/)

[megladon8]

Venom is no longer R rated.

Aaaaaaaand I’m out.

[Scar]

Venom is no longer R rated.

Aaaaaaaand I’m out.

I see no definitive call on the rating. Sony brass wants to push the limits of PG-13, but nothing official.

[MadMan]

Venom is no longer R rated.

Aaaaaaaand I’m out.

Movie looks like crap anyways.

[Dukefrukem]

Which day appeals to you the most? For me it's probably the Team Ups day, even though they should have replaced GotGv2 wiht Thor Ragnarok.

https://images.fandango.com/images/promos/FND-Marvel10thAnniversary-LP-v04.jpg

[Ezee E]

Either the 9/2 or 9/3 day.

[Dead & Messed Up]

8/31 and 9/1 would be the best days for me. Both are 3/4 of a decent time.

[Ezee E]

I'm not going to do this btw.

[TGM]

8/31 and 9/5 for me.

[bac0n]

Wow, they're showing iron man 2 during prime time. That's rich.

[TGM]

So literally every movie I would've possibly been interested in checking out again for the MCU re-releases posted above will be showing exclusively in 3D. Guess I'll be skipping 'em all after all.

[kuehnepips]

So much of the non-action scenes look so clumsy and amateurish, and Hardy looks super-uncomfortable.

Of course he's uncomfortable, he has a parasite!

[Dukefrukem]

Teaser tomorrow?

1037151762497654784

[Henry Gale]

Teaser tomorrow?

1037151762497654784

I imagine first pictures with a big splashy cover, a long cover story article, etc. as EW doesn't personally release teasers.

But yeah, I hope a teaser comes out in conjunction too.

[Dukefrukem]

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Click Bait BS

1037369974396993537

[Wryan]

Big ol' album of pics: https://imgur.com/gallery/MtgPN6a

[Dukefrukem]

Jackson looks pronominal. This deaging tech can be used in such cool ways.

[Dukefrukem]

Jackson looks pronominal. This deaging tech can be used in such cool ways.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BnWjTahH5DA/?utm_source=ig_embed

[Henry Gale]

Can't believe Jackson is going to turn 70 this year.

I mean, it's hard to imagine moving on from such a nice age.

[Dukefrukem]

Captain Marvel trailer Tues morning on Good Morning America.

[Dukefrukem]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1BCujX3pw8

[Wryan]

Someone mentioned it looks a bit like the original Thor, but I liked the original Thor a lot soooo sure I'm on board.

[Dukefrukem]

I love the Blockbuster reveal in that trailer.

[[ETM]]

I like how totally vague it is. I imagine if you're not a fan already it spoils absolutely nothing.

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

[Grouchy]

So it's set in the 90s! I thought it was the 60s for some reason.

But it makes sense, Sam Jackson would have been a baby.

[Peng]

Ehhhh. Did love the HER > A HERO text though; corny but effective. Judging by Clark Gregg, they are having real fun with this de-aging thing.

[Peng]

Also, using Blockbuster Video store to tell what time period it is makes me feel so, so old...

[megladon8]

I’m tired of this damned female agenda!!

Stop woman-washing my movies!!

MAGA! BUILD THE WALL!

[Morris Schæffer]

Good trailer!

[Milky Joe]

I will see this for Agent Coulson.

[Skitch]

Wow...I thought I knew more about Captain Marvel, but I guess I don't.

[megladon8]

Like the trailer.

I’d i had to bet money on it, I’d say it’ll either be good, or not good.

[Milky Joe]

I have a feeling that Captain Marvel will go through some soul searching before ultimately prevailing against the forces which seek to destroy her.

There may or may not be a Pulp Fiction reference.

[transmogrifier]

Honestly, that trailer looks awful. Ugly lighting, poorly cut, Larson's voice is weirdly girlish and lacks charisma....

[[ETM]]

There it is...

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

[Skitch]

Honestly it didnt really do much of anything for me either, but it is just a teaser and I apparently dont know much about CM.

[Dukefrukem]

Honestly it didnt really do much of anything for me either, but it is just a teaser and I apparently dont know much about CM.

It does a good job not giving away anything, and just teasing characters. My favorite thing to do now is go into a movie completely blind. Worked so well for Hereditary, Upgrade and I plan on doing the same for Mandy (Panos Cosmatos).

[Skitch]

It does a good job not giving away anything, and just teasing characters. My favorite thing to do now is go into a movie completely blind. Worked so well for Hereditary, Upgrade and I plan on doing the same for Mandy (Panos Cosmatos).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. I'm just saying I'm not seeing anything enough to judge.

[Dukefrukem]

TELL ME!

1042411495072645120

[Skitch]

I have no idea. Maybe something to do with the pod-racer engine looking think on the left?

[Henry Gale]

Not my own theory, but the ladder on the right with the crate on the edge look like and A and an E, respectively. Which I guess could lend to thoughts that this next movie could be called "Avengers: Endgame" (directly referring to Strange's line at the end of Infinity War) or "Avengers Eternal" (the Russos having previously refuted that the title was "Avengers Forever" but that that was a fairly close guess).

[Grouchy]

That was my take as well, that the ladder was forming an "A" for "Avengers". Hadn't caught on the little E, though.

[Morris Schæffer]

There's a nasty turd in the bottom right corner.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWbMckU3AOQ

[TGM]

I think the most interesting thing about that trailer is that they're dropping the name "X-Men" out of the title, and just calling it "Dark Phoenix". I appreciated them for doing that with Logan, and I appreciate it here, too, so actually showing their audience at least that much respect.

But other than that, I dunno, there's just nothing there that really looks all that interesting? *shrug*

[Irish]

Eh. "Dark Phoenix" will make it read like a horror film on the marquee.

I'm skeptical because (a) I always am and (b) they tried this story before and did that ever suck.

(Also, this is another X-Men story about mutants fighting mutants. Formula is a little worn after so many films.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

How about an X-Man where there's no fighting and instead it's a social drama about mutant oppression? Just give someone $30 mil to do it, see how it works. They have the deep pockets.

[TGM]

Eh. "Dark Phoenix" will make it read like a horror film on the marquee.

But see, that's precisely what I like about it, is that despite this, the studio is still showing they respect their audience's intelligence enough to know the difference. I appreciate the little moments here and there where studios actually don't treat their audiences like complete and total idiots, rare as those moments may be these days. :p

[[ETM]]

How about an X-Man where there's no fighting and instead it's a social drama about mutant oppression? Just give someone $30 mil to do it, see how it works. They have the deep pockets.They are trying that on TV...

Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk

[Dukefrukem]

(Also, this is another X-Men story about mutants fighting mutants. Formula is a little worn after so many films.)

I want this more than mutants fighting humans. I was expecting this to be darker.

This doesn't look very satisfying, but I really liked the line: "You're always sorry Charles and there's always a speech". Almost like the movie is saying we know we've done this before, but....

[Grouchy]

(b) they tried this story before and did that ever suck.
To be fair they never tried this story before. They just shoe-horned the concept at the end of a film that was about something else, same way they just threw Doomsday at the tail of Batman v. Superman. A fucking waste.

As for mutants fighting mutants... that must be 90% of the comics. In fact, only God Loves, Man Kills comes to mind as a story that's purely about humans vs. mutants, and that was already sort of done in X2.

[Grouchy]

;595573']They are trying that on TV...
Legion?