Board 8 > Guardians of the Galaxy 3 on "permanent hold."

(+) Yeah! (+)

If people are saying otherwise, then you're disagreeing with them, and that statement is in contention with theirs. That's engaging in argument.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

this assumes he was fired for that reason which he clearly wasn't. he was fired because public opinion turned against him, which is totally fair for Disney to do. they don't want to be associated with someone who is bringing in negative press. that's their decision to make.

This is hardly true. The actors all support Gunn, and a massive petition does too. The people who support him far outweigh those that don't; don't forget the dude who got him fired is basically the scum of society that almost no one respects. Gunn has not really had any "negative press" since this began; it's all been negative on Disney for making this decision honestly.
---

woodman posted...

If people are saying otherwise, then you're disagreeing with them, and that statement is in contention with theirs. That's engaging in argument.

you can't just simply admit that you were wrong about it being a tautology and now you've forced yourself into the corner of having to argue some really dumb, indefensible position. it's okay to walk away. although it would be better to just admit that you made a mistake. it's really easy.

much easier than whatever the hell you're doing now

v_charon posted...

This is hardly true. The actors all support Gunn, and a massive petition does too. The people who support him far outweigh those that don't; don't forget the dude who got him fired is basically the scum of society that almost no one respects. Gunn has not really had any "negative press" since this began; it's all been negative on Disney for making this decision honestly.

your refutation has nothing to do with the statement I actually made, so I have no idea how "hardly true" applies here. did I say the actors were all against him? did I say the people against him outweighed the ones who supported him? all I said was that it had generated bad press (this is OBJECTIVELY TRUE, although you don't seem to think that it is... for... some reason) and that disney had the right to cut ties with him over that.
---

v_charon posted...

This is hardly true. The actors all support Gunn, and a massive petition does too. The people who support him far outweigh those that don't; don't forget the dude who got him fired is basically the scum of society that almost no one respects. Gunn has not really had any "negative press" since this began; it's all been negative on Disney for making this decision honestly.

The snap reaction firing was a fear for of it being negative press

Keeping him fired is stubbornness at this point
---

Disney literally got tricked into thinking there was going to be a public backlash when there wasn't going to be one and that was the entire goal of the campaign in the first place. they got fooled by a neo-nazi's attempt to ruin someone's career and bit on it when nobody else gave a shit

MariaTaylor posted...

your refutation has nothing to do with the statement I actually made, so I have no idea how "hardly true" applies here. did I say the actors were all against him? did I say the people against him outweighed the ones who supported him? all I said was that it had generated bad press (this is OBJECTIVELY TRUE, although you don't seem to think that it is... for... some reason) and that disney had the right to cut ties with him over that.

If you believe Disney reacted the way they did to avoid bad press, then at this point they should be rehiring him to avoid the bad press they are now receiving from this. At this point, having him fired has generated more negative press than he ever had before they fired him.
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

Disney literally got tricked into thinking there was going to be a public backlash when there wasn't going to be one and that was the entire goal of the campaign in the first place. they got fooled by a neo-nazi's attempt to ruin someone's career and bit on it when nobody else gave a shit

Basically this. Disney got fooled by some insane right-wing nutjob. A guy who has been filmed on camera being a completely vile human being; admitting this whole thing was a smear campaign in the first place. Disney basically looks like an enabler to the far right wackos at this point, especially since they won't right their wrong.
---

That's the worst part for Disney

The guy admitted, on camera, that it was a smear campaign

Disney's refusal to back down because it will make them look "weak" is causing more negative press than anything else
---

v_charon posted...

If you believe Disney reacted the way they did to avoid bad press, then at this point they should be rehiring him to avoid the bad press they are now receiving from this. At this point, having him fired has generated more negative press than he ever had before they fired him.

you're conflating two separate issues here. honestly, probably three.

1. I said that I believe they fired him for that reason. I never said that their reasoning was correct.

2. I never said that they SHOULD have done it, just that they did do it and they had the right to it.

3. Your logic that I need to support any decision that helps them avoid bad press is totally unrelated to the two points above. I've never made any claim about what Disney "should" do so there's no reason why I would care what they "should" do about the current bad press. Similarly, I have never affirmed this idea that firing him over bad press was the correct decision. I've only said that they had the right to do it.

4. Similarly, if you ask me if they have the right to rehire him now, sure, they do. I wouldn't be mad if they did.

You're trying to start a senseless argument with someone who doesn't even care about the subject you're arguing for or against.

v_charon posted...

Basically this. Disney got fooled by some insane right-wing nutjob. A guy who has been filmed on camera being a completely vile human being; admitting this whole thing was a smear campaign in the first place. Disney basically looks like an enabler to the far right wackos at this point, especially since they won't right their wrong.

StealThisSheen posted...

The guy admitted, on camera, that it was a smear campaign

okay but a smear campaign is negative press. you guys can see that right?

when someone says "disney fired him because they didn't want to be associated with the bad press" this is not some controversial argument. it's just what happened. even YOU GUYS are saying it while arguing against it.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

yeah the only people who would ever be upset about pedophilia jokes are nazis

you are an insightful individual

This entire campaign was perpetrated by a nazi who faked public outrage because he didn't like Gunn.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

okay but a smear campaign is negative press. you guys can see that right?

Nobody's saying it isn't

What people are saying is that it wasn't actually getting them nearly the amount of negative press they thought it was, and are getting more now than if they had done nothing, yet they're sticking to their guns and causing themselves further issues.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

This entire campaign was perpetrated by a nazi who faked public outrage because he didn't like Gunn.

and this means that no one who was made aware of the tweets could possibly be offended unless they were a nazi?

you realize pedophilia is considered probably one of the more heinous crimes in existence, right???
---

Like, I don't think anybody's saying they weren't allowed to act how they did or anything

People are saying them continuing to be stubborn over it is hurting them worse
---

MariaTaylor posted...

You're trying to start a senseless argument with someone who doesn't even care about the subject you're arguing for or against.

Are you sure that's me and not you though, really? I'm not really sure what you are wanting to say in here really. To state the obvious things everyone knows? I don't know if anyone in here needs the clarification you're attempting to offer. I agree that's WHY they fired him, obviously. I understand the why and the initial reaction, just not what they are doing at this point when the truth has come to light.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Nobody's saying it isn't

well, sort of, yes. this entire line of replies has been based around charon's post at the top of this page where he claims that gunn's tweets didn't generate any bad press. although looking back over it now he did say "not really had any bad press" which is a bit less definitive than I was thinking when I read it originally.

StealThisSheen posted...

What people are saying is that it wasn't actually getting them nearly the amount of negative press they thought it was, and are getting more now than if they had done nothing, yet they're sticking to their guns and causing themselves further issues.

right and to this I've already said

"I'd like to see another GotG movie but if I don't get to see one over some unfair internet bullshit I'm not going to boycott disney over it either."
---

MariaTaylor posted...

you realize pedophilia is considered probably one of the more heinous crimes in existence, right???

I don't think anybody would argue that at all

But this wasn't pedophilia

These were jokes about pedophilia from a time when jokes about pedophilia were in almost everything "edgy." Mainstream comedies to this day still make Catholic priest jokes.

People have the right to be offended and I'm sure some were, but the main sources of outrage Disney witnessed were fake.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

This entire campaign was perpetrated by a nazi who faked public outrage because he didn't like Gunn.

and this means that no one who was made aware of the tweets could possibly be offended unless they were a nazi?

you realize pedophilia is considered probably one of the more heinous crimes in existence, right???

If people are dumb enough to see those tweets and feel actual outrage that he might be one, then they're too stupid to take seriously. You want Disney to can every movie with a shot from space to get the flat earthers on their side? Same difference. There was no real outrage here, just faux outrage stirred up by the alt-right. Disney gained nothing and lost everything with this.
---

I think the best part about Adam Warlock is that he can be a great baseline character for the direction of the next ten years of Marvel films. He functions well in storylines with Galactus, Mephisto or a returning Thanos (though I doubt that would happen). He has the ability to fit into an Annihilus conflict, a Dark Phoenix conflict... hell, he could make a play against the mutants of Earth if you frame them correctly. And to just yank the opportunity for such a unique character that we haven't seen in superhero films yet really shows just how much Marvel consistently doesn't believe in unestablished characters.
---

v_charon posted...

Are you sure that's me and not you though, really?

well I can't be 100% sure it's you. maybe you're not trying to start a senseless argument. but I know for sure it's not me -- I mean, you obviously care about the subject we're talking about. so how could I be arguing with someone who doesn't care? by definition I couldn't be doing that.

v_charon posted...

I'm not really sure what you are wanting to say in here really

there are plenty of people in this topic, especially the earlier replies, massively overreacting to this event. and I've seen similar sentiments in really all of the related topics in the past. people are acting like it is blowing their fucking minds that disney would want to fire someone over bad press. like, this kind of thing happens all the time. I guess what I'm trying to say is; get over it, people. it's a movie about superheroes in space.

v_charon posted...

I don't know if anyone in here needs the clarification you're attempting to offer.

maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't say my goal is to go around performing benevolent actions for the good of the people and providing a service that they need. people are discussing a subject, and I'm posting my thoughts on that subject. it's not any more complicated than that.

StealThisSheen posted...

People have the right to be offended and I'm sure some were

right, but keep in mind some people in this topic don't agree with that statement. I'm just pointing out how dense they are being for legitimately believing that ONLY nazis could be offended by the idea of pedophilia.

LapisLazuli posted...

If people are dumb enough to see those tweets and feel actual outrage that he might be one, then they're too stupid to take seriously.

I never said they were smart, I never said that you were obligated to take them seriously. you implied that they don't exist. I pointed out that they do.

although if you think there are NO smart people who were offended by this you're probably also wrong (not even one? really???). then again your view of the world seems to be incredibly narrow minded so that doesn't really surprise me.

LapisLazuli posted...

You want Disney to can every movie with a shot from space to get the flat earthers on their side?

no, because for the billionth time I never made the argument that disney SHOULD fire him. I only made the argument that it was their right to do so, and gave the reason for why they did. funny that someone who can't even follow a simple conversation is accusing others of being dumb.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

right, but keep in mind some people in this topic don't agree with that statement. I'm just pointing out how dense they are being for legitimately believing that ONLY nazis could be offended by the idea of pedophilia.

I probably give them a bit more credit than you do. I assume they're being hyperbolic, since the good majority of people going after Disney at the time were alt-righters.

If they're indeed saying that ONLY nazis, then yeah, I'd say I don't agree with it.
---

UltimaterializerX posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

I think the best part about Adam Warlock is that he can be a great baseline character for the direction of the next ten years of Marvel films. He functions well in storylines with Galactus, Mephisto or a returning Thanos (though I doubt that would happen). He has the ability to fit into an Annihilus conflict, a Dark Phoenix conflict... hell, he could make a play against the mutants of Earth if you frame them correctly. And to just yank the opportunity for such a unique character that we haven't seen in superhero films yet really shows just how much Marvel consistently doesn't believe in unestablished characters.

If done right Warlock would be fine.

What percentage of the public do you think knew of Thanos before Avengers 1? They can do a similar build with Warlock and be just fine.

Marvel doesn't think villains sell movies unless they're in films first. They had faith that Thanos would sell if they built him. And to their credit, they did consistently build him.

The issue with Warlock is that he wasn't quite introduced, and it was a clear setup for a GotG franchise package part. So now, unless they somehow sign Hemmy to another deal, space is going to be up in the air and resting on the shoulders of the success of Captain Marvel. Or Silver Surfer if Marvel can swing that back their way.

Essentially the issue is whether space can play again now that there's a certain level of toxicity surrounding that corner of the MCU.
---

Thanos had at least the very casual comic fan recognition I think. Which means a lot since those people can educate the non casuals. With Warlock you've got a much more narrow set of people who knows who he is I think.

Not that it really matters. We're talking about a franchise in GotG where the most known character was probably Rocket Raccoon who was probably less known than Thanos and people love em all.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I probably give them a bit more credit than you do.

well this is almost certainly true lol

the issue is that these are often the same type of people who can't ever admit that they are wrong. so if I point out that their hyperbole isn't true, instead of going 'yeah I misspoke' or 'yeah I was being hyperbolic you dipshit' they literally start arguing against me and try to defend a position which is obviously false.
---

I think it's a product of this board, somewhat. I used to be that way and still find myself doing it every now and then because it's the easiest way to continue an argument. Most people here enjoy arguing/debating, and that ends when you go "Okay I'm wrong."
---

Lopen posted...

Thanos had at least the very casual comic fan recognition I think. Which means a lot since those people can educate the non casuals. With Warlock you've got a much more narrow set of people who knows who he is I think.

Not that it really matters. We're talking about a franchise in GotG where the most known character was probably Rocket Raccoon who was probably less known than Thanos and people love em all.

I'm not even sure fan recognition matters anymore. Everyone knows who Cyborg is, and I guarantee you that DC's Cyborg movie bombs pretty hard because no one cares about Cyborg. Meanwhile, GotG had a great pre-release marketing campaign, and that, combined with word of mouth, really propelled it forward. Point is, comic fans don't matter that much anymore. If every single person who bought a Marvel comic in August bought a movie ticket, it wouldn't make more than a $4 million difference.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Point is, comic fans don't matter that much anymore. If every single person who bought a Marvel comic in August bought a movie ticket, it wouldn't make more than a $4 million difference.

yeah I think this point is really cool. it's one of my favorite things about how the comic book movie scene has developed. although I don't know if we can trust the studios to do unique things, it at least opens up the idea that more niche or unique things can be adapted and they could be successful.

makes it fun to speculate about what could come next and what they might come up with instead of just like... in previous eras you would only ever really think to see another batman or superman movie, and not much of anything else.
---

The even cooler thing, for me at least, is seeing things like Scalped, 100 Bullets, Watchmen, DMZ, and Astro City being kicked around for TV. It's those big name creators taken off of the leash of "Big Comics" that always have the coolest high-concept pieces, and I tend to have the most fun with those types of comics. We have a Doom Patrol series in pre-production. The world is a crazy place.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

I think it's a product of this board, somewhat. I used to be that way and still find myself doing it every now and then because it's the easiest way to continue an argument. Most people here enjoy arguing/debating, and that ends when you go "Okay I'm wrong."

sure, I wouldn't argue against this being true in some cases. I think there's also plenty of cases where the person simply has a massive ego and can't back down. and other cases where they are legitimately wrong and just supporting a bad/dumb position without seeing how wrong they are.

I don't think anything happens for no reason. I guess I'm just saying regardless of the reason for doing it, I think people who post that way are annoying and come across as dumb.

scarletspeed7 posted...

We have a Doom Patrol series in pre-production.

I'm actually too big of a Doom Patrol fan to be excited about this, because I have reason to suspect it will most likely end up bad.
---