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

(+) Yeah! (+)

There's nothing about this situation that doesn't suck. It sucks for the hundreds of employees who suddenly have to find other employment in an industry where the top 5% are the only ones who can have a comfortable living. It sucks for fans of the series who enjoyed not only Gunn's work, but on a broader level, that corner of Marvel that represented a flavor they found unique and entertaining.

But it especially sucks for me since I was looking forward to the introduction of Adam Warlock. Adam is absolutely one of my favorite Marvel characters, with a great, striking design and a really unique personality. I've always found the stories of characters like Adam Warlock and Quasar to be some of the level-best Marvel has to offer, and to essentially indefinitely shelve that entire quarter of Marvel is really disheartening. I've always enjoyed the parts of Marvel that aren't just bog-standard superheroics but also something with a unique style, and that's what the space comics (and also the magic comics to some extent) are at Marvel.
---

I'm also sad because warlock is my favorite marvel character
---

Metal_DK posted...

I'm also sad because warlock is my favorite marvel character

Awesome! I didn't know there were other Warlock fans around here. High five.
---

Did we know who they were casting for him?
---

No, I don't think the movie was that deep into production yet. I always wanted Nikolaj Coster-Waldau to play him though. Just think he'd be a natural.
---

I think there was some rumors that James Gunn wanted Glenn Howerton in a role and some fans suggested/jokes about bringing him in to play Warlock.

I personally think it would've been amazing should they have gone that route
---

I wonder if Ulti is capable of not lying for a single day

Both of those would be cool takes on warlock. Oh well
---

BetrayedTangy posted...

I think there was some rumors that James Gunn wanted Glenn Howerton in a role and some fans suggested/jokes about bringing him in to play Warlock.

What? This would have been completely amazing and totally out of left-field. I'm grinning just thinking about it.

God damnit.
---

XIII_rocks posted...

BetrayedTangy posted...

I think there was some rumors that James Gunn wanted Glenn Howerton in a role and some fans suggested/jokes about bringing him in to play Warlock.

What? This would have been completely amazing and totally out of left-field. I'm grinning just thinking about it.

God damnit.

Haha oh I know, it's so upsetting. It sucks well never see Adam Warlock, the Golden God.
---

*sits back with Popcorn*
---

Clearly Warlock should be played by Logan Paul
---

I agree that "it happened 8 years ago" isn't a good defense of a person, but that it happened 8 years ago AND the person apologized AND tried to be a better person while calling awareness to his poor former behavior... I think that's OK. We have to be able to forgive people and move on.
---

Clearly the right thing is to never apologize and make excuses though. That works well for others.
---

v_charon posted...

Clearly the right thing is to never apologize and make excuses though. That works well for others.

Just ask our current president.
---

apologizing in general is pretty dumb, yeah. content creators need to learn to stop issuing apologies every time people complain about things they've done in the past. because people are always going to complain no matter what up to, and including, the point where you apologize -- and they'll still continue to hold it against you even after you apologize.

why waste your breath on such dullards?
---

Because sometimes you genuinely feel remorse for your actions maybe?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Because sometimes you genuinely feel remorse for your actions maybe?

I've found such cases to be pretty rare. for me or anyone else, really. most of the time when people apologize it's in that childish way where they hope it absolves them of getting in trouble -- not because they actually feel remorseful.

and with these big public apologies that are meant as PR stunts well, I guess I can say the reason they do them is because there are people dumb enough to believe the apologies are genuine. so I guess I can't hold that against you if you truly want to believe it with all your heart.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I've found such cases to be pretty rare. for me or anyone else, really.

Okay
---

choose carefully

A. James Gunn actually feels legitimate remorse over making jokes on twitter, which, as evidenced by this very topic, 80%+ of people probably wouldn't even find to be a big deal

B. James Gunn "apologized" because he wanted to get a job at Disney and that's just what you do
---

I wasnt talking about Gunn, I was commenting on your view of apologies in general
---

well I'm a bit of a misanthrope but I don't think I'm strictly wrong either.
---

Without apologies we would never get any shit done

Gunn hasn't made any dumb edgelord pedophilia jokes since then so ok

Here is how apologies work

1. You do a stupid thing

2. You apologize (I don't care if you feel actual remorse or not)

3. You do not do stupid thing in the future (I do care about this)

Most people fail at step 3 and that's where I roll my eyes but Gunn has not yet failed at step 3 to my knowledge

MariaTaylor posted...

choose carefully

A. James Gunn actually feels legitimate remorse over making jokes on twitter, which, as evidenced by this very topic, 80%+ of people probably wouldn't even find to be a big deal

B. James Gunn "apologized" because he wanted to get a job at Disney and that's just what you do

I think it's a combo. He legitimately stopped making jokes like that and thinks they were in poor taste, but he wouldn't have bothered doing a big public apology if he wasn't trying to get a job at Disney.
---

Hey I'm okay with Gunn working again, just not at the job he had before.

why not since the

the tweets all way predate the job so why are you into him specifically losing this one but not others. The job and the tweets have no actual connnection.

is it just a "make pedo jokes, lose one job sometime eventually" rule
---

can we just give him this job back if we promise to fire him from something else in like ten years
---

Paratroopa1 posted...

1. You do a stupid thing

2. You apologize (I don't care if you feel actual remorse or not)

3. You do not do stupid thing in the future (I do care about this)

This makes sense to me.

I mean we can't even realistically speculate on #2 if #3 is upheld, generally. So even if you're the type to actually care you shouldn't care cause you're never going to know anyway.
---

I would say "make pedo jokes, lose job at children centric company" isn't an unreasonable position.

I would say it's similar to "grope women/underaged girls, don't get to be in the Senate" ala Roy Moore and Al Franken.
---

It's a good thing Fred Silverman fired Al Franken in 1980 because under Ulti's rules, we'd have to fire him from something else now. That's too much work.
---

So does this mean the MCU is done?
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I would say "make pedo jokes, lose job at children centric company" isn't an unreasonable position.

yeah I can't speak for ulti but this seems to be more in line with what he's implying. of course this won't stop people from making up ridiculous exaggerated positions that he didn't say and then arguing against THOSE positions...
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I would say "make pedo jokes, lose job at children centric company" isn't an unreasonable position.

I would say it's similar to "grope women/underaged girls, don't get to be in the Senate" ala Roy Moore and Al Franken.

Sure.

But make pedo jokes, stop making them, be hired by children centric company who knew about them before the hiring, get fired when an angry mob decides to care about the tweets much later is a bit different from what you've said, which implies the jokes were made while working at the company.

Disney should have never hired him if those jokes were an actual issue to them as a company.
---

profDEADPOOL posted...

Disney should have never hired him if those jokes were an actual issue to them as a company.

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.
---

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if those nazis hated Disney. Walt would be rolling in his grave.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

profDEADPOOL posted...

Disney should have never hired him if those jokes were an actual issue to them as a company.

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.

So would you say it's fair to fire anybody that is doing a good job as long as they are bringing in negative press?

Like, if Johnny is a great worker, but Joey hates him and gets a bunch of his friends to call in and complain about him and spam the company's social media, the company should just fire Johnny?
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if those nazis hated Disney. Walt would be rolling in his grave.

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

you are an insightful individual

StealThisSheen posted...

So would you say it's fair to fire anybody that is doing a good job as long as they are bringing in negative press?

Like, if Johnny is a great worker, but Joey hates him and gets a bunch of his friends to call in and complain about him and spam the company's social media, the company should just fire Johnny?

you're conflating two separate issues here. I did not say, nor do I believe, that they SHOULD fire him. I said that they have the RIGHT to do that. which they do.

don't try and make me defend a position that I don't believe in. it's not going to work.

to answer your first question no I don't think it's "fair" but life isn't fair and the world isn't fair so get over it. 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.
---

I think this was stupid because public opinion problems is usually a money issue. This is going to cost them money.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Yeah, it'd be a real shame if those nazis hated Disney. Walt would be rolling in his grave.

I mean...
---

MariaTaylor posted...

to answer your first question no I don't think it's "fair" but life isn't fair and the world isn't fair so get over it.

I mean you literally just said it was fair in your previous post which was why I responded in the first place
---

StealThisSheen posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

to answer your first question no I don't think it's "fair" but life isn't fair and the world isn't fair so get over it.

I mean you literally just said it was fair in your previous post which was why I responded in the first place

in that case I misspoke. or, rather, when I said "fair" there I meant "valid." like "they are legally allowed to make this move." you seemed to take it as me saying "I think it's totally fair and balanced."
---

of course it's valid that's borderline tautological
---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I think this was stupid because public opinion problems is usually a money issue. This is going to cost them money.

I think this is my actual take on it. It's just a dumb move overall.

Usually, if you're going to fire somebody or whatever else because of public opinion problems, you're doing it because said problems are going to cost you money.

In this case, not only did they trade public opinion problems for other public opinion problems, but now there are problems with the movie itself which is going to cause them many more money issues than the initial issue would have in the first place.

It was a short-sighted gut reaction to a minimal public opinion issue, and regardless of what I think about that issue itself, they deserve to face the consequences of it.
---

He means it's fair in the business move sense for Disney not morally fair.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

to answer your first question no I don't think it's "fair" but life isn't fair and the world isn't fair so get over it.

I mean you literally just said it was fair in your previous post which was why I responded in the first place

in that case I misspoke. or, rather, when I said "fair" there I meant "valid." like "they are legally allowed to make this move." you seemed to take it as me saying "I think it's totally fair and balanced."

Fair enough. My response doesn't really apply, then.
---

woodman posted...

of course it's valid that's borderline tautological

tautological assumes that I'm making an argument there, when really I'm just making a statement. I was simply pointing out that there's no reason why disney shouldn't be able to fire someone if they wanted to separate themselves from the associated bad press. some combination of poor choice of words + the english language having lots of words that have multiple meanings caused this to become a misunderstanding.

the fact that SEP saw it as an argument and felt the need to argue against it doesn't magically transform what I said into a tautology. me saying 'it's totally fair to paint your house blue' isn't a tautology is it?
---

MariaTaylor posted...

woodman posted...

of course it's valid that's borderline tautological

tautological assumes that I'm making an argument there, when really I'm just making a statement. I was simply pointing out that there's no reason why disney shouldn't be able to fire someone if they wanted to separate themselves from the associated bad press. some combination of poor choice of words + the english language having lots of words that have multiple meanings caused this to become a misunderstanding.

the fact that SEP saw it as an argument and felt the need to argue against it doesn't magically transform what I said into a tautology. me saying 'it's totally fair to paint your house blue' isn't a tautology is it?

no, it'd be a non sequitur if nobody is saying you aren't allowed to paint it that way
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I would say it's similar to "grope women/underaged girls, don't get to be in the Senate" ala Roy Moore and Al Franken.

Clearly they should have ran on a presidential ticket for insta-election status.
---

woodman posted...

no, it'd be a non sequitur if nobody is saying you aren't allowed to paint it that way

cool, but people are having a discussion about james gunn being fired by disney. it's actually happening in this very topic. you can find it if you look closely.
---