Batman-Online.com

This is gorgeous. So much better than those generic character-standing-with-back-to-camera posters we've been lumbered with for the past decade.

Indeed.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe films are among the few that are still keeping the poster art alive, although I still long for the days of the iconic work of John Alvin and Drew Struzan.

You're not wrong about Alvin and Struzan. I'll never understand why Hollywood turned its back on the art of film posters.  :(

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 17:58
You're not wrong about Alvin and Struzan. I'll never understand why Hollywood turned its back on the art of film posters.  :(

Two expensive/not cost-effective, I suspect, especially after the rise of the internet and multiple accessible trailers and teasers.  Still, there are plenty of hobbyist artists and graphic designers making their own custom posters, it's just a shame that the film studios don't seem too interested in reviving this lost art-form.

Quote from: Silver Nemesis on Sun,  5 Mar  2017, 17:58
I'll never understand why Hollywood turned its back on the art of film posters.  :(

I didn't have a problem with these:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2Fk3639k.png&hash=f2f2c0000b693f7f03fbc650889eb33065fbd58c) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F1zq592u.png&hash=c563df26c029e1dec2d50e6f7092631fc8df61df)
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2F2qaljiu.png&hash=bf6c87a10bd13be3388d65ab0eec7c15d26c2267) (https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi66.tinypic.com%2F2aafzuh.png&hash=6143c8fa6b4e2ac2d7ce610add54a1fe5aa93768)

Those aren't bad by today's standards. But when gobbs and myself refer to the art of the film poster – with specific reference to people like Alvin and Struzan – we're really talking about this sort of thing:


You don't generally see beautiful artwork like that in modern film marketing. Not unless it's a deliberate throwback, as in the case of the Kung Fury and Stranger Things posters.

Those above posters are gorgeous (The Last Crusade and the Back to the Future trio are a particular favourites of mine), but I'll give the Suicide Squad marketing department some props for at least making a much bigger effort on their posters than most others seem to these days.  I do quite like the stark simplicity and instant recognisability of the skull iconography for each member of the team plus The Joker.

The identity of Stallone's character has been revealed. Apparently he's playing Stakar Ogord, aka Starhawk.


If his costume looks like this in the movie, then I can see why the early reports compared his appearance to that of Judge Dredd.

More importantly, Miley Cyrus is apparently providing the voice of Mainframe. ::)

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 22 Apr  2017, 21:40
...Miley Cyrus...

I love that Sly posted on his facebook a pic of him with Michael Rooker (Yondu), mentioning Cliffhanger.

I forgot Yondu was in Cliffhanger. That and Days of Thunder were the first films I saw Rooker in. More than anything though, I'd like Sly to share a scene with Russell so we can have a Tango & Cash reunion.

Meanwhile here's a new retro-flavoured song from the soundtrack featuring vocals by the Hoff himself:


Not as good as 'True Survivor' from the Kung Fury soundtrack, but it fits the GotG tone.

Well, what this movie also needs is a song by Robert Tepper!

Hell yes! And an inspirational power ballad sung by Stan Bush.

Kumite. Yeah, nothing beats these 80s songs.

I found somebody compiling these excerpts of three rather lukewarm reviews of GOTG2 that are mysteriously identified as "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-MP2b3XYAAQ5AW.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/TheFliteCast/status/856545880148725760

I couldn't help but notice some anti-MCU hater on YouTube poking fun at some Rotten Tomatoes reviews, by pointing out that despite the supposed "fresh" ratings, a common consensus seems to be the film is disjointed and disappointing. In fact, some reviews were entered twice, even some from different newspapers by the same critic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzTJlIGH1yQ&t=8s

I don't share with this smartass's dislike for the MCU, but he does prove something that I already know: RT is bullsh*t. I get the impression that a lot of the reviews were mixed, but they were arbitrarily identified as either "fresh" or "rotten".

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 25 Apr  2017, 03:15
I found somebody compiling these excerpts of three rather lukewarm reviews of GOTG2 that are mysteriously identified as "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-MP2b3XYAAQ5AW.jpg:large)

https://twitter.com/TheFliteCast/status/856545880148725760

Those reviews, particularly the Time Out one, are positive.  Just not unequivocally so.  The consensus seems to be that the film is enjoyable and fun, but nevertheless ranks as a disappointment since it doesn't live up to the brilliance of its predecessor.  That still constitutes as 'fresh' in most people's book.

Hey!  It's Tango and Cash!

I watched this today.

Let me first say that while I thought the first Guardians was overrated, I still enjoyed it. For what it was worth, it was a good time to spend a couple of hours being introduced to obscure characters that most people weren't familiar with. And you could get behind this team of weirdos defying the odds and save the universe.

But as for the sequel? I didn't like it. As I first feared when seeing the trailers, the humour has become overdone and even more juvenile to the point that it ruins whatever dramatic tension happening on screen. For example, Drax was a melancholic, tragic character in the first film, but in Volume 2, he has been reduced to becoming this clownish buffoon who laughs at nearly everything. Another mindless attempt at comedy relief. The less said about Mantis, the better. I couldn't stand her. And Baby Groot...need I say more?

I can't be bothered going through spoilers right now, so I'll summarise with this: the novelty for the Guardians have worn off for me. I may have been very critical of Civil War in the last couple of months, but even that was a much better film than this. Doctor Strange is certainly better than this.

GOTG2, in my opinion, is the MCU's weakest film since Iron Man 2. And to think these misfits are going to feature in Avengers: Infinity War.  :-[

So the movie was a letdown?

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F25.media.tumblr.com%2Fdd691a4a8286b7f5ab3962124a383bda%2Ftumblr_mh2xyqXCFJ1qbjttio1_r1_250.gif&hash=6002fa81e1e47dd6f5561d611b66c2521d6bcd89)

I don't have anything to do with Marvel. I wouldn't take anything to do with Marvel on Free Comic Book Day. I won't watch or read any of their crap, even if it's free. Say what you want, but I don't care. That's my stance. The only reason why I'm posting in this thread is to talk trash.

It's funny that after the riddler quite rightly highlighted the idiocy of IMDb trolls going on certain boards simply to attack and criticise films and franchises they don't care for, we're now seeing exactly the same mindless nonsense here from the die-hard DC fanboys.

Absolutely pathetic.  If you don't like Marvel or the MCU guys, no one is forcing you to watch their films.  In the meantime, I'll trust the 82% of professional critics who have rated this film a success.

By the way, blockbuster movies should be fun.  Not exercises in interminable violence and gloomy misanthropy.  If I want that, I'll go and see an art-house film that actually deals with subject matters worthy of such sombre and brooding treatment (i.e. not grown men dressing up in tights).

Let's see here, on the plus side, cause let's start off positive (!), GOTG2 felt like one of the more self-contained MCU films of late. I mean, other than the "Adam" tease in the credits, and Nebula's desire to kill her father, it's not really doing alot setup work.

The villain, to me, was actually pretty good! Which is surprising to say when talking about the MCU line of villains. Definite improvement over the villain in the 1st GOTG. However, I could have cared less about the Gold people, and I would find myself sighing when they kept popping back up.

Some good jokes, but damn, a lot of misses too. Probably more misses than hits to be perfectly honest here. If only the humor was dialed back a bit. There doesn't need to be a joke, or an attempt at one, literally every 10 seconds.

Good ensemble cast, and they seem much more comfortable this time around. So that's good.

Stuff I wasn't really big on, but perhaps wouldn't classify as a negative are things like the overuse of music. It actively felt like a gimmick this time around, especially particular scenes with characters (in some instances, not even the Guardians) finding excuses to play songs from Star-Lord's Awesome tapes. Also, wasn't really sold on the execution with how Rocket and Yondu being BFF's after one quick, forced scene, where "we're the same." changes everything. Speaking of forced, Gamorra just happening to stumble into the remains of the villain's other offspring by pure coincidence is just another example. 

Negatives? I found GOTG2 to have some obvious pacing issues, especially as much as it was trying to cram in there. Relying heavily on the gimmicks/schtick from the first one, but ultimately the movie just wasn't as cohesive as it could have been. Also, and ONCE AGAIN, the continual undercutting of dramatic moments with the snarky, sarcastic humor went way too far at times. For me, it's difficult to be fully invested in a in-story world wide/intergalatic threat when snarky lines are being thrown around at a rapid pace.

There is a death that is highlighted in GOTG2, but the foreshadowing is incredibly on the nose.
I'm paraphrasing here, but it's like; "You broke the code! When you die, you will not receive an honorable ______ funeral!"

Me: "awww... he ain't making it to GotG 3, is he."

And sure enough ...... 


Ultimately, GOTG2 was entertaining enough, but not without noticeable problems, and just overall less fresh than the first.

Dumb sheep side with the Tomato Meter. They're nothing but a die-hard professional critic fanboys. That's what makes them absolutely pathetic. The Tomato Meter thinks for them. They don't think for themselves.

These idiots only deserve ridicule and shame. And believe me, they get plenty of that. I get PMs about a certain user from time to time. And they're not complimentary. More people here absoutely hate them. More people here just wish they disappeared from these forums never to return. I have to agree with their sentiment.

But back to Marvel. I don't give a damn about anything Marvel. I can't stand their McDonald's assembly line of films and I'll shout that from the rooftops. I'm not being forced to see their films is just a dumb comment. That goes without saying. Only a simpleton would say something like that.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sun,  7 May  2017, 13:37
By the way, blockbuster movies should be fun.  Not exercises in interminable violence and gloomy misanthropy.  If I want that, I'll go and see an art-house film that actually deals with subject matters worthy of such sombre and brooding treatment (i.e. not grown men dressing up in tights).

1992. Tim Burton took a movie about grown men (and women) dressing up in tights and did some gloomy, sombre and brooding stuff about outcasts instead of delivering the standard and fun blockbuster. What were they thinking?

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  8 May  2017, 02:50
Negatives? I found GOTG2 to have some obvious pacing issues, especially as much as it was trying to cram in there. Relying heavily on the gimmicks/schtick from the first one, but ultimately the movie just wasn't as cohesive as it could have been. Also, and ONCE AGAIN, the continual undercutting of dramatic moments with the snarky, sarcastic humor went way too far at times. For me, it's difficult to be fully invested in a in-story world wide/intergalatic threat when snarky lines are being thrown around at a rapid pace.

I thought the humour flat out sucked.

Although I wouldn't say the comedy in the first Guardians was high brow either, it was certainly much more creative the garbage served in Volume 2. That dance by Peter Quill to distract Ronan was way funnier than the constant idiotic dick jokes here.

There was one thing I found actually disturbing about this film: (***SPOILERS IN WHITE***) the way Yondu and Rocket massacre everybody on the pirate ship - gleefully, mind you - to the sound of a pop song in the background, reminded me of the repugnant Kick-Ass movie. And yet, because the whole scene is played for a cheap laugh, we're supposed to go along with it because it's "light-hearted fun"? That's quite inappropriate for a movie that's supposedly marketed for kids, especially that cutesy Baby Groot horsesh*t. Really, this movie has a lot of dark moments that get swept in the carpet in this manner.

Memo to Snyder: just play a catchy pop song in the background of your fight scene, and voila, the audience will be manipulated into thinking it's light-hearted fun. Quick, somebody edit the Batman warehouse scene in BvS with Toni! Tony! Toné's Feel's Good playing in the background. Or better yet, put Glenn Frey's The Heat is On as background music for the Batmobile chase scene! Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score guaranteed!

Quote from: The Joker on Mon,  8 May  2017, 02:50
There is a death that is highlighted in GOTG2, but the foreshadowing is incredibly on the nose.
I'm paraphrasing here, but it's like; "You broke the code! When you die, you will not receive an honorable ______ funeral!"

Me: "awww... he ain't making it to GotG 3, is he."

And sure enough ...... 

(***SPOILERS IN WHITE***)

That whole Yondu sacrifice was so forced. As far as I can remember in the first film, he was an utter scumbag. But now we're supposed to buy this idea that he's Peter Quill's surrogate son? Please.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  8 May  2017, 04:45These idiots only deserve ridicule and shame. And believe me, they get plenty of that. I get PMs about a certain user from time to time. And they're not complimentary. More people here absoutely hate them. More people here just wish they disappeared from these forums never to return. I have to agree with their sentiment.

Define most?

I speak regularly to about half or so of the users here via PM, so if you're right that means there are a lot of very two-faced people on this forum.  Thankfully, I suspect you're wrong and your definition of 'most people here' amounts to about four members, one of whom doesn't even appear to post here anymore.

Quote from: Azrael on Mon,  8 May  2017, 07:191992. Tim Burton took a movie about grown men (and women) dressing up in tights and did some gloomy, sombre and brooding stuff about outcasts instead of delivering the standard and fun blockbuster. What were they thinking?

That's interesting because I'd argue that both Tim Burton's Batman movies are fun (as well as occasionally dark and disturbing), and like Guardians of the Galaxy, deals with society's outcasts. :)

But we both like the films and have different interpretations of it.  That's okay. :)  What I will say however, is that unlike certain other comic-book movie franchises and filmmakers, Burton rarely takes himself that seriously...

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Mon,  8 May  2017, 12:18There was one thing I found actually disturbing about this film: (***SPOILERS IN WHITE***) the way Yondu and Rocket massacre everybody on the pirate ship - gleefully, mind you - to the sound of a pop song in the background, reminded me of the repugnant Kick-Ass movie. And yet, because the whole scene is played for a cheap laugh, we're supposed to go along with it because it's "light-hearted fun"? That's quite inappropriate for a movie that's supposedly marketed for kids, especially that cutesy Baby Groot horsesh*t. Really, this movie has a lot of dark moments that get swept in the carpet in this manner.

Memo to Snyder: just play a catchy pop song in the background of your fight scene, and voila, the audience will be manipulated into thinking it's light-hearted fun. Quick, somebody edit the Batman warehouse scene in BvS with Toni! Tony! Toné's Feel's Good playing in the background. Or better yet, put Glenn Frey's The Heat is On as background music for the Batmobile chase scene! Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score guaranteed!

Probably not. It wouldn't change the context of each scene or the tone of the movie. Where one is amoral space pirates, being amoral space pirates and killing psychopathic space pirates, as they escape. And the other is a main character who is supposed to be a hero needlessly, without point, killing people so he can get something to murder another hero character and then ignore it. I agree the scene isn't good morally and shouldn't be treated lightly. But the scene is still well crafted structurally and isn't out of character. GOTG 2 is rated PG-13. A character being marketed for kids doesn't make the movie for kids.

Quote(***SPOILERS IN WHITE***)

That whole Yondu sacrifice was so forced. As far as I can remember in the first film, he was an utter scumbag. But now we're supposed to buy this idea that he's Peter Quill's surrogate son? Please.

For all intents and purposes the first highlighted specifically and had a character state that Yondu was always soft on Quill. Even to the point where when he discovers that he's been tricked by Quill and the orb has a troll doll and not the gem, he doesn't get angry, he laughs. This movie expands on him and adds more context to that concept. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Tue,  9 May  2017, 20:42

Quote from: Azrael on Mon,  8 May  2017, 07:191992. Tim Burton took a movie about grown men (and women) dressing up in tights and did some gloomy, sombre and brooding stuff about outcasts instead of delivering the standard and fun blockbuster. What were they thinking?

That's interesting because I'd argue that both Tim Burton's Batman movies are fun (as well as occasionally dark and disturbing), and like Guardians of the Galaxy, deals with society's outcasts. :)

But we both like the films and have different interpretations of it.  That's okay. :)  What I will say however, is that unlike certain other comic-book movie franchises and filmmakers, Burton rarely takes himself that seriously...

You say it yourself, what is "fun", like many things, is subjective (e.g. for me The Dark Knight is by far the most fun and entertaining* Batfilm).

My point was that the criticism you level to BvS can very well apply to BR (in fact, thousands of words have been written on the "backlash", McDonalds etc). Batman Returns is certainly not the traditional blockbuster, the way you define it. Burton made a personal film, an "auteur" film, even if it had characters in tights and was expected to sell many toys. And he's certainly far from the first, or the last, artist who did something personal and with meaning featuring grown men in tights.

*most entertaining does not equal "favourite", "best" etc.

I did enjoy the father figure triangle but I do question redeeming Michael Rooker's character, I've only seen the first film twice so I'd have to see it again to determine whether the overall character arc makes sense.

I do feel this film wrecked some special parts of the first film. The dance scene was somewhat romantic in the first film, in this film it was forced. Drax was definitely a parody of himself in the first film, it reminded me of Arnold Schwarzenegger's performance in Terminator 3. I was hoping for more Stallone or some scenes with Kurt Russel but we didn't get much. Good to see Sly do another comic movie after Judge Dredd.

Groot was definitely the worst part of the film. It's obvious the film makers went way out of the way to make him look cute and him dancing around during the fight scenes and waving was outright embarrassing and a perfect example of reasons why some people don't take comic films seriously. In the comics Groot is extremely intelligent which is intriguing since he only utters one line which we understand. These movies make him out to be stupid which wrecks the character. I'm hoping we've seen the last of Baby Groot.

I feel bad for people heavily invested in either side of the Marvel vs DC debate. It's fine if people like one over the other but claiming either is golden and the other is trash is about as silly as saying Coke is excellent but Pepsi tastes like urine. The reality is that there's a lot of successful people who have worked for both companies including Stan Lee (whom by the way doesn't bash DC and was good friends with Bob Kane). They're not as different as people want to make them out to be and even if you do hate either company, it would be immature not to admit that both sides push the other to be better and a monopoly in this industry would be a terrible thing.

As JG pointed out, nobody is forced to watch or read anything against their will.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 10 May  2017, 13:50
Drax was definitely a parody of himself in the first film

Agreed. In my opinion, he was far worse than Groot. But Mantis was the one character I couldn't stand the most. I suppose she was supposed to be a telepath with an alien, childlike innocence about her. But as with the puerile handling of the jokes in this film, her character came across as unbearable woman child. She has to be one of the worst characters on film that I've seen in a while.

I can't believe this pile rubbish is getting good reviews. I suspect people's appreciation for the first film, and the Marvel branding, is clouding their judgment.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 10 May  2017, 13:58

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 10 May  2017, 13:50
Drax was definitely a parody of himself in the first film

Agreed. In my opinion, he was far worse than Groot. But Mantis was the one character I couldn't stand the most. I suppose she was supposed to be a telepath with an alien, childlike innocence about her. But as with the puerile handling of the jokes in this film, her character came across as unbearable woman child. She has to be one of the worst characters on film that I've seen in a while.

Honestly I found the mantis character to be nothing more than a stereotypical shy, nerdy, oblivious Asian (and please note that I am saying she fits an Asian stereotype, this is not a shot at Asians). I'm not saying this is a bad film but this film isn't being called out for being guilty of two big complaints about Superman III and Batman and Robin
-stopping the plot to tell jokes such as have characters stop what they're doing during action scenes to tell a joke or not taking the fight scenes seriously.
-lampooning the previous installments such as having characters say and do things which should be completely out of character for them.


Also what is with the four post-credit scenes? I'm not talking about the content just the sheer fact that there were FOUR of them. Phase ones credit scenes were juicy foreshadowing of things to come. Then the Avengers added a second post credit scene with no plot just humour (the shwarma scene) and they clearly stopped putting thought into them and just did them for the sake of doing them. Four of them in one movie is definitely overkill of what was once a great thing.

Quote from: riddler on Wed, 10 May  2017, 20:39
Also what is with the four post-credit scenes? I'm not talking about the content just the sheer fact that there were FOUR of them. Phase ones credit scenes were juicy foreshadowing of things to come. Then the Avengers added a second post credit scene with no plot just humour (the shwarma scene) and they clearly stopped putting thought into them and just did them for the sake of doing them. Four of them in one movie is definitely overkill of what was once a great thing.

Ever since Iron Man 3, the post-credit scenes became gags. The only exceptions were The Winter Soldier and Doctor Strange.

Anyway, the YouTuber Film Gob has once again compiled a video of these fools from Collider raving about GOTG2 and the Spider-Man: Homecoming trailer for superficial reasons, while hypocritically denouncing the Wonder Woman trailer for having humour, and apparently, even Sam Raimi's Spider-Man is not off limits (I know you're not a big Raimi fan riddler, I'm only saying). Raimi's Spider-Man is set in a "movie-world universe" compared to the MCU. I'm not making this utter stupidity up.

P.S. Mind the voice filtering and the children photographs, Film Gob is ridiculing the people on that Collider show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o90hfR-EnVI&t=131s

Finally watched this and totally adored it. Reading the hatred on here for it I'm wondering if I actually watched the same movie lol. I liked the story, characters, music, all of it. And the visuals of it with all the colors and everything were beautiful. And the humor was a lot of fun, which I thought is what the movie was supposed to be. Didn't realize everything's supposed to be dark and brooding. It's fine to have a guy turn himself into a giant Pac-Man every now and then.

I didn't have a problem with the characters changing either. To me Drax seemed like he was in that euphoric "Everything is great" state of having his new family. When I was "adopted" I was happy go lucky and laughing and giggling at everything too despite the really dark sh*t in my life, so that seemed fine to me. With Yondu from his very first scene you see that he is troubled by things he's done. So him being redeemed didn't seem that far fetched to me either. With poor Mantis, keep in mind those were her first interactions with someone outside of Ego. She had a lot of learning to do since I'm sure any lessons from him left a pretty big void in the social department. And all you people hating on Baby Groot, we're fixing to fight. He was a baby for pete's sake! Of course he was silly and dance-y and so freaking adorable.

I adore oldies music so both soundtracks were right up this kitty's alley. I had to laugh at someone (I think TLF?) calling "Come A Little Bit Closer" a catchy pop song. Yeah it was a catchy pop song alright, in like 1964 lol.

So yea. I'm definitely the odd ball here, cause I rate it very high. Loved every aspect of it. But that's ok, to each their own, right? :)

Quote from: Catwoman on Mon,  2 Oct  2017, 05:32
Finally watched this and totally adored it. Reading the hatred on here for it I'm wondering if I actually watched the same movie lol.

Sorry Cat, but we'll just have to disagree. I enjoyed Guardians 1 and thought it was a pleasant surprise. But I thought this sequel pales in comparison in every possible way.

Disney have SACKED James Gunn after he was exposed for making offensive tweets from nearly a decade ago, "joking" about rape and pedophilia. ***WARNING***: the screenshots of his tweets are pretty graphic and NSFW.

Source: https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/guardians-director-fired-over-old-offensive-tweets/news-story/f27e148e5b9bed89e61c8b1a81278683

Judging by the despicable treatment of the Mantis character in this movie, I'm not that surprised. Good riddance, I've gotten tired of his rubbish sense of humour, and hopefully the MCU improves because of this. More movies like the first two Cap ones and even Black Panther, less movies like GOTG2.

Only one of those is all that sketchy (eg, the one about the "silly place")... and even that one could have a harmless, though bawdy, intent to it.

When people gripe about PC culture gone amok, this is what they mean.

Although here once again Hollyweird is devouring one of its own so I shed no tears.

Political correctness may have gone mad, but I still have no sympathy for Gunn. There are just some things you don't joke about.

Come to think of it, GOTG2 did have this creepy sh*t with Yondu getting kicked out of the Ravagers for child trafficking. I'm actually shocked Marvel/Disney gave this the OK to begin with.

Well this is disappointing and disgusting. I adored those movies, had never heard of the guy before seeing the first one so I wasn't aware of who he was back when, but that is pretty terrible. I get that people can change and I hope he's sincere that he's left that behind, but I'm not going to worry much over him being fired.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 01:13
Only one of those is all that sketchy (eg, the one about the "silly place")... and even that one could have a harmless, though bawdy, intent to it.

When people gripe about PC culture gone amok, this is what they mean.

Are you f***ing sh*tting me?

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 02:54
Well this is disappointing and disgusting. I adored those movies, had never heard of the guy before seeing the first one so I wasn't aware of who he was back when, but that is pretty terrible. I get that people can change and I hope he's sincere that he's left that behind, but I'm not going to worry much over him being fired.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 01:13
Only one of those is all that sketchy (eg, the one about the "silly place")... and even that one could have a harmless, though bawdy, intent to it.

When people gripe about PC culture gone amok, this is what they mean.

Are you f***ing sh*tting me?

No. For all I know, he was trading tweets with somebody and they were getting pretty R-rated. Or it's possible that it's exactly what you think it is. If laws were broken (or are being broken), the authorities can handle it. But I don't see what's gained in having little emotional spasms online about tweets which may very well be far divorced from context.

Full disclosure- I don't have a horse in this race. I think the GOTG movies are overrated assembly line pap and Gunn up to this point has basically been a very lucky TV-tier director. IOW, I have no loyalty to him or this franchise. I just think waiting for all the facts is generally preferable to losing my mind over something which may have an innocent explanation.

I don't have a horse in this race either, but Gunn's volume of tweets around this topic do show a trend. In any case, the guy has been sacked and his reputation is now mud. I don't have any sympathy.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 04:11
I just think waiting for all the facts is generally preferable to losing my mind over something which may have an innocent explanation.

The man had apparently tried to delete over TEN THOUSAND tweets of vile comments over the years in light of this backlash. He might not have physically harmed anybody (at least we aren't aware of), but it makes me wonder how depraved he is if this is his sense of "humour". Even if he was trying to provoke people.

Gunn apologised for his Tweets years ago.  He realised they were a mistake.

Also, one of the people who unearthed the Tweets and has been calling on Gunn to be fired as 'revenge' for Roseanne Barr (as if her crappy sitcom is a tenth as brilliant and vital to our culture as the wonderful Guardian of the Galaxy films) is Mike Cernovich, a man who has been charged with rape, ultimately served a sentence for misdemeanour battery, and who has denied the existence of date rape.  He also has a history of attacking his enemies as 'paedophiles' without any evidence to support his position.

The guy is slime, and Disney acted like idiots in allowing itself to be guided by such a person.

Sadly, Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 3, if it is still made, will be severely compromised by its loss of the filmmaker who made the first two films such distinctive hits, thanks in part to its very unique sense of humour and soundtracks.  Bear in mind that when the MCU released the first Guardians of the Galaxy, no-one expected it to be a mega-hit.  It was expected to fall under the radar since hardly anyone, even some of the most ardent Marvel fans, knew who these characters were.

Good work Disney in killing the Golden Goose...

I've no doubt his old tweets were intended to provoke and were ill-thought out attempts at dark, gross-out humour. I don't believe for a second he was emoting some dark fantasy he has or intended to make light of child sexual abuse.

However it came across in his tweets the fact is if you work for Disney and sh*t like that comes out, then you're gone. That's their policy. Gunn says he understands that so fair enough.

As for him making posts to "provoke"? The guy was in his 40s when he make the tweets...and he stands today blasting "fanboys" who provoke on social media?? Seriously?

Personally I found GotG2 to be a let down. Maybe some fresh blood will help the series.

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 13:11
Personally I found GotG2 to be a let down. Maybe some fresh blood will help the series.

A 'let down'?

I have spoken to many people, particularly individuals who had a stronger bond with their step-parents to their biological dads or moms, who found GOTG2's focus on Peter's father-son relationship with Yondu, following his discovery regarding his birth father, to be extremely touching and powerful, and Ego turned out to be one of the most complex and interesting villains in the MCU franchise.

Also, the first two GOTG films have such a distinctive style, unlike the first Thor film or the first Captain America film, both of which were pretty generic and could have been directed by pretty much anyone, with their blend of comedy and emotion, the team dynamic, the bright colour scheme, and especially the soundtrack, which is a very important and vital element and depends very heavily on Gunn's particular music tastes, that I can't imagine for a single moment any filmmaker who could, or would even want to, replicate them and make Volume 3 seem like a consistent part of the trilogy.

To be honest, Disney would be far better advised to simply drop a third GOTG film rather than risk ending up with a subpar effort that tries, and fails, to replicate the previous two films under a new director.  Unfortunately, that does mean that we won't get a payoff to the Adam Warlock storyline set-up during the mid-credits sequence for GOTG2, but we can blame petty, Roseanne Barr-loving alt-right rapist scumbags like Mike Cernovich for that.

It's because of people like him and his ilk that the rest of us can't have nice things.

The themes explored were interesting yes, but from a film making POV I found the overall script and humour a let down. What can I say.? 

Quote from: Paul (ral) on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 14:06
The themes explored were interesting yes, but from a film making POV I found the overall script and humour a let down. What can I say.?

I felt the exact same way about the absurdly overpraised Thor: Ragnarok.

I've also read people suggest that Ragnarok's director Taika Waititi should replace James Gunn for GOTG3.  Just a heads up for all of you deeply offended by Gunn's Twitter account, Waitit's next film is a comedy about a boy during WWII Germany who makes friends with an imaginary Hitler...

Disney really is controlled by a bunch of sanctimonious and clueless goody-goodies.

I know it tends to keep falling on its feet, but eventually the company is going to discover that if it wants to keep expanding it will, eventually, have to hire people with less than savoury histories (it already employs Johnny Depp and Josh Brolin, both of whom have been accused of DV, which I'd argue is much more serious than a bunch of, admittedly ugly, Tweets).

The way the company keeps burning bridges with filmmakers like Edgar Wright, Patty Jenkins, Joss Whedon, Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, and now James Gunn, how do they expect to keep finding great talent to work with?

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 04:11

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 02:54
Well this is disappointing and disgusting. I adored those movies, had never heard of the guy before seeing the first one so I wasn't aware of who he was back when, but that is pretty terrible. I get that people can change and I hope he's sincere that he's left that behind, but I'm not going to worry much over him being fired.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 01:13
Only one of those is all that sketchy (eg, the one about the "silly place")... and even that one could have a harmless, though bawdy, intent to it.

When people gripe about PC culture gone amok, this is what they mean.

Are you f***ing sh*tting me?

No. For all I know, he was trading tweets with somebody and they were getting pretty R-rated. Or it's possible that it's exactly what you think it is. If laws were broken (or are being broken), the authorities can handle it. But I don't see what's gained in having little emotional spasms online about tweets which may very well be far divorced from context.

THERE IS NO f***ING CONTEXT IN WHICH JOKES ABOUT SEXUAL ACTS WITH CHILDREN ARE OKAY

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 13:48

To be honest, Disney would be far better advised to simply drop a third GOTG film rather than risk ending up with a subpar effort that tries, and fails, to replicate the previous two films under a new director.  Unfortunately, that does mean that we won't get a payoff to the Adam Warlock storyline set-up during the mid-credits sequence for GOTG2, but we can blame petty, Roseanne Barr-loving alt-right rapist scumbags like Mike Cernovich for that.

It's because of people like him and his ilk that the rest of us can't have nice things.

Yeah your priorities are really in order there. As I said above I loved both movies and was super excited for the third one but I didn't love them enough to sacrifice values of wrong and right to attempt to justify the director joking about SEX ACTS WITH CHILDREN. And it doesn't matter that the other guy is a scumbag in his own right. That doesn't excuse the behavior he pointed out any more than the behavior he pointed out excuses his own actions, which is not at all.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 20:05Yeah your priorities are really in order there. As I said above I loved both movies and was super excited for the third one but I didn't love them enough to sacrifice values of wrong and right to attempt to justify the director joking about SEX ACTS WITH CHILDREN. And it doesn't matter that the other guy is a scumbag in his own right. That doesn't excuse the behavior he pointed out any more than the behavior he pointed out excuses his own actions, which is not at all.

This site is not really the place to have a confessional and talk about one's most awful personal experiences, but all I will say is that I have some personal understanding of this type of abuse, and so I do not take the subject lightly.

That said, James Gunn made some very ugly, ill-advised jokes for which he nevertheless apologised for long before this controversy blew-up.  I know you are, to your credit, speaking reasonably about the topic, but I would still argue that unless a person has committed an act as utterly heinous as actual child abuse, rape, serious sexual assault or murder, they are capable of being forgiven, especially if they have apologised and made it clear that they are now a different person.

Yes, I am partly being selfish as a fan of the GOTG films who would like another one from Janes Gunn, but even if one were to think about this objectively for a moment, who has he actually hurt with his, admittedly offensive and disgusting, old Tweets?  I can't speak for everyone who has been abused as a child, but as awful as his Tweets are I don't know if Gunn has done any real damage to victims.  From what I understand, he has been quite vocal in calling out genuine sex offenders, like James Toback, and child molesters, like Victor Salvo.  I also understand his, misguided jokes, were his, very poor, tactic of bringing the topic out in the open.

Looks like Disney is practicing some Gunn control that's not protected by the 2nd amendment. har har Anyways, I'm not the biggest GOTG fan, or a vocal proponent of Disney's, but they are somewhat consistent in the SJW PC era that's been established and nourished by Hollywood. I'll give em that.

However, I have to be suspicious of a man of 50 yrs old that so obviously dyes his hair and tweets his opinions based solely with emotions. Sure, it's a common trait for alot of people at any age, but I fail to see the "humor" of what he was evidently tweeting about. Humor, or intents and purposes, derives from looking at things from an unusual angle, i.e. looking at the world thru a different light/lens. Now if it's true from what I've heard that the guy has specifically tweeted pedo jokes over 1000 times? .... Yeah, that's an odd duck to say the very least. And I'm not talking about good 'ol Howard either.

Quote from: The Joker on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 21:44
However, I have to be suspicious of a man of 50 yrs old that so obviously dyes his hair and tweets his opinions based solely with emotions.

How suspicious are you of a man about 70 yrs old that so obviously dyes his hair and tweets his opinions based solely with emotions...?

If we criticise one on those grounds, then surely we have to criticise the other, unless we're using senility to excuse the latter.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 20:05THERE IS NO f***ING CONTEXT IN WHICH JOKES ABOUT SEXUAL ACTS WITH CHILDREN ARE OKAY

Congratulations, you're the most morally outraged person here. We're all highly impressed with your ability to lose all control of yourself. Personally, I'm not really all that interested in joining in with your signalling and self-righteousness though. If he broke the law, he should be arrested. It's no more than he deserves.

Moving away from the emotionally unstable wing of this discussion, it sounds like TDK has read more of the guy's tweets than I have. If there's a trend there, maybe the guy has issues. And, again, if he's breaking the law, he needs to get arrested.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 22:30Congratulations, you're the most morally outraged person here. We're all highly impressed with your ability to lose all control of yourself. Personally, I'm not really all that interested in joining in with your signalling and self-righteousness though. If he broke the law, he should be arrested. It's no more than he deserves.

Moving away from the emotionally unstable wing of this discussion, it sounds like TDK has read more of the guy's tweets than I have. If there's a trend there, maybe the guy has issues. And, again, if he's breaking the law, he needs to get arrested.

Agreed.  If Gunn has committed a crime, he should be arrested.  If not, we should all move on with our lives and, as thecolorsblend says, drop all the 'signalling and self-righteousness'.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 22:30
Moving away from the emotionally unstable wing of this discussion, it sounds like TDK has read more of the guy's tweets than I have. If there's a trend there, maybe the guy has issues. And, again, if he's breaking the law, he needs to get arrested.

As said, like you, I don't have a horse in this race. It's funny though. The feral left (who make taking offence an artform) don't like it when their own standards are used against them. People are hounded over historical incidents all the time, even words and not actions. The year of these tweets shouldn't matter by those standards. A tweet made in 2009 means he was 41 years old. 10,000 of these pedophile flavored posts were made. If he said sorry he also should have gone back and deleted them, or more simply, deleted his account to start fresh. But he didn't. Disney has a policy and that policy was enforced. Simple.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 22:02
How suspicious are you of a man about 70 yrs old that so obviously dyes his hair and tweets his opinions based solely with emotions...?

If we criticise one on those grounds, then surely we have to criticise the other, unless we're using senility to excuse the latter.

criticize

Who are you referring to? Robert De Niro?

Sure. We can speculate about senility like CNN, but you are just going around the rabbit hole with that one.

I wonder if Gunn still holds this belief while discussing that other idiot Roseanne?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DinlxyfVMAAcKsE?format=jpg)

James Gunn is a hypocrite, but are we saying that no-one should ever get a second chance?  Even if their misdemeanour was committed eight years ago and they've since apologised for it?!?

I'm personally of the opinion that even Roseanne Barr should be permitted a second chance.  Many on the left would no doubt violently disagree with me, but the far left and the far right are full of idiots, and we're seeing a lot of extremists from either side poke up from under their caves to judge all and sundry these days. Sanctimony and self-righteousness is turning into a sport with everyone desperate to prove how morally virtuous and superior they are.

The reason why Roseanne doesn't yet deserve a second chance however is that she made her racist comments very recently, and has showed no remorse or contrition for them.  Everything indicates that she still stands by those comments.  But hypothetically, I do think, whatever some on the far left may say, she should, if she was willing to staunchly take back her racist comments, be allowed to rehabilitate her career.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 22:30

Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 20:05THERE IS NO f***ING CONTEXT IN WHICH JOKES ABOUT SEXUAL ACTS WITH CHILDREN ARE OKAY

Congratulations, you're the most morally outraged person here. We're all highly impressed with your ability to lose all control of yourself. Personally, I'm not really all that interested in joining in with your signalling and self-righteousness though. If he broke the law, he should be arrested. It's no more than he deserves.

Hilarious. Because feeling like tweets about sex acts with kids are deplorable is moral grandstanding and self righteous. Right. Got it.

And I'm plenty in control, thank you. The capital letters were for emphasis of a point that I thought was common sense, but it apparently isn't. The funny part is I specifically pointed out in my post that I hoped it was behind him even though I wasn't too concerned with him losing his job at this moment. My response is to an idiot saying they might have been taken out of context. Ok, since you want to pull out the "You're morally outraged and self righteous blah blah blah" card, educate me. Explain to me what context those are okay to make. Meanwhile I'm going to go morally grandstand some more and pray that you don't have any immediate dealings with children if you think sh*t like that can be okay.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 02:50
I wonder if Gunn still holds this belief while discussing that other idiot Roseanne?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DinlxyfVMAAcKsE?format=jpg)

I didn't watch one episode of the Roseanne reboot. I'm a conservative guy but it just didn't interest me. Simply 'being conservative' doesn't automatically mean I'm going to watch something religiously. In fact, I don't watch a lot of TV anyway. But did I support the aims of the show 'in spirit'? Yeah.

And lots of other people did too, judging by the ratings. But here's the rub.

I don't think Roseanne is that smart in a streetwise sense. In fact, the aftermath has shown she's pretty dumb. She made a mistake in the eyes of the network, but then kept digger the hole even deeper. Careers die so they have no choice but to embrace their crass reputation. That goes for people on the left and right.

I like John Goodman and feel sorry for him. I guess he took a risk to come back and star in this show, given how polarizing this all seems to be now. And then Roseanne blows up needlessly, getting the show axed and laughing stock? I'd be pissed.

Roseanne got ahead of herself. Some play this game better than others.

Do I think the network should've axed the show? Well, I think they're neglecting a large viewership. But that's the network's call. Same goes for Disney. This is the environment we are in now.

I'm trying to be impartial here – I hope people can respect that.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18Hilarious. Because feeling like tweets about sex acts with kids are deplorable is moral grandstanding and self righteous. Right. Got it.

Going insane over it is moral grandstanding. And self-righteous.

And not lady-like at all, sadly.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18Meanwhile I'm going to go morally grandstand some more

So I see.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18and pray that you don't have any immediate dealings with children if you think sh*t like that can be okay.

Thankfully the only child I have had to deal with lately is you.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 23 Jul  2018, 02:32I didn't watch one episode of the Roseanne reboot. I'm a conservative guy but it just didn't interest me. Simply 'being conservative' doesn't automatically mean I'm going to watch something religiously. In fact, I don't watch a lot of TV anyway. But did I support the aims of the show 'in spirit'? Yeah.

And lots of other people did too, judging by the ratings. But here's the rub.

I don't think Roseanne is that smart in a streetwise sense. In fact, the aftermath has shown she's pretty dumb. She made a mistake in the eyes of the network, but then kept digger the hole even deeper. Careers die so they have no choice but to embrace their crass reputation. That goes for people on the left and right.

I like John Goodman and feel sorry for him. I guess he took a risk to come back and star in this show, given how polarizing this all seems to be now. And then Roseanne blows up needlessly, getting the show axed and laughing stock? I'd be pissed.

Roseanne got ahead of herself. Some play this game better than others.

Do I think the network should've axed the show? Well, I think they're neglecting a large viewership. But that's the network's call. Same goes for Disney. This is the environment we are in now.

I'm trying to be impartial here – I hope people can respect that.

My sense of the show is that it's satire about conservatives. I get that people enjoyed it. But satire is satire. When King Of The Hill was big on TV, I knew people who loved it... which I found exasperating. "This show is about Texans. You're a Texan. They're making fun of you. You do realize that, right?"

Still, the Roseanne cancellation feels different. Viewers of that show didn't interpret the cancellation as Roseanne's punishment. Rather, they viewed it as silencing one of the few nominally conservative shows on TV. It doesn't matter if they're right or if they're wrong. That's how they saw the situation.

Honestly, I love all of this. Hollywood is so full of SJW's or even full-on communists that when they start eating each other, they're thinning their own ranks. I have no pity for them and I hope the unearthed tweets keep coming and more careers get ruined. It's better entertainment than most of what's on TV these days anyway.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 23:46

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 22:30
Moving away from the emotionally unstable wing of this discussion, it sounds like TDK has read more of the guy's tweets than I have. If there's a trend there, maybe the guy has issues. And, again, if he's breaking the law, he needs to get arrested.

As said, like you, I don't have a horse in this race. It's funny though. The feral left (who make taking offence an artform) don't like it when their own standards are used against them. People are hounded over historical incidents all the time, even words and not actions. The year of these tweets shouldn't matter by those standards. A tweet made in 2009 means he was 41 years old. 10,000 of these pedophile flavored posts were made. If he said sorry he also should have gone back and deleted them, or more simply, deleted his account to start fresh. But he didn't. Disney has a policy and that policy was enforced. Simple.

Gunn was known for making making homophobic, sexist jokes on his blog, which he later apologised for doing so shortly after he got the GOTG gig (how convenient). So obviously, Disney were aware that he had been capable of some form of misconduct. Whether or not they knew about his more obscene comments on social media is another matter. But then again, it wouldn't surprise me if they were, and happily looked the other way as long as it didn't draw them negative attention. This is Hollywood, after all. Now it appears they're desperately trying to save face from this PR debacle.

Anyway, in one of Gunn's Twitter exchanges, he shared a very crude joke with somebody by the name of Huston Huddleston, who only a month ago pleaded guilty for possessing child pornography.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/james-gunns-firing-from-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-is-a-disastrous-win-for-right-wing-mobs
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/man-who-saved-ncc-1701-d-touring-bridge-pleads-guilty-to-child-porn-charge/

Now, I don't think getting in touch with somebody who is about to be a registered child sex offender makes Gunn a pedophile without a shred of doubt. But he has brought that suspicion upon himself because of his pathetic taste for "comedy". Besides, if you're dumb enough to write your worst posts in the public sphere, let alone making yourself open to scrutiny, you only have yourself to blame.

Finally, it's absolutely pitiful there are people trying defend him like Dave Bautista and Selma Blair, as well as those getting together a petition demanding him to get rehired. That includes the pathetic bloggers, like this deadbeat called Linsday Ellis, who I found on Twitter. Her excuses for Gunn's conduct are pathetic, as is the desperate hashtag #RehireJamesGunn. But considering she accuses Zack Snyder of being a "sexist" and "hating his mother" because she hated the way women are apparently mistreated in his films makes me believe her perception is all screwed up. I thought the way Mantis was depicted in the sequel - not only as a character but even the way she was treated by Drax - was far worse than anything Snyder had done to a female. "But Gunn has grown as a person over a decade in the last decade, we all have!" she says. Right, even though he didn't bother to delete his tweets until the sh*t had hit the fan. And frankly, Ellis should take a good hard look at herself in the mirror, because when fans mentioned that Snyder's mother had passed away years ago, all she could say was "How was I meant to know?!". Sounds like she has a lot of growing up to do. To be fair though, I guess I should go easy on her, she did get arrested last year for her violent public drunkenness, so she's battling a lot of demons. Or maybe she's just a horrible person...

I got a little carried away there, but I'll leave it at that.

When Selma Blair was battling with whether to out and shame the filmmaker, James Toback, who sexually assaulted her some years ago, it was her friend, James Gunn, that helped her and gave her the strength to speak out about Toback, a genuine sexual predator and abuser (as opposed to someone who merely makes foolish jokes on Twitter).  Of course she is going to stand by her friend.

And good on her for initiating this Change petition.  What is so silly about standing by a friend who spoke out against a sexual predator, and is moreover a great filmmaker who many fans of the Guardians of the Galaxy films would like to see finish his franchise.  Unlike many other comic-book movie directors, Gunn brings genuine warmth and colour to his films, something we haven't really seen in CBMs since the days of Tim Burton's Batman films.

Also, if a woman tells you that a film is misogynist, you damn well listen to her.  It's not for men to decide what characters are and aren't sexist.  And so far the only people I've seen complain about Mantis and Gamora in the Guardians of the Galaxy films are men.  Well, to be quite honest, they know where to shove their opinions about 'sexism'.

What I will say is that this nonsense (the firing of James Gunn over Tweets he apologised for several years ago) wouldn't have happened at Warner Bros/DC.

Disney is notorious for going overboard in protecting its 'family friendly' image, and for keeping its filmmakers on a tight-leash.

For all the criticism levelled at the DCEU, from myself included, one has to credit WB/DC for treating its filmmakers and actors, including those like Jason Momoa who have made unfortunate comments in the past (during a "Game of Thrones" Comic Con panel a few years back Momoa joked about how he enjoyed playing Drogo because it gave him the chance to 'rape beautiful women'), like adults.  It's also interesting to note that filmmakers, like Patty Jenkins and Ava DuVernay, who fell out with Disney over creative issues and chose not to be a part of the MCU, are now making films for the DCEU, confirming a suspicion that for all its faults the DCEU is a lot more filmmaker-orientated and supportive of creative freedom than Disney.

You're allowed to make mistakes at Warner Bros/DC which is ultimately a good thing for creativity.  By contrast, Disney's overly-PC, family-conscious image means it won't accept any slight transgression or mistake on the part of its talent, unless it can be hypocritically brushed under the carpet.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 23 Jul  2018, 15:37
What I will say is that this nonsense (the firing of James Gunn over Tweets he apologised for several years ago) wouldn't have happened at Warner Bros/DC.

Disney is notorious for going overboard in protecting its 'family friendly' image, and for keeping its filmmakers on a tight-leash.

For all the criticism levelled at the DCEU, from myself included, one has to credit WB/DC for treating its filmmakers and actors, including those like Jason Momoa who have made unfortunate comments in the past (during a "Game of Thrones" Comic Con panel a few years back Momoa joked about how he enjoyed playing Drogo because it gave him the chance to 'rape beautiful women'), like adults.  It's also interesting to note that filmmakers, like Patty Jenkins and Ava DuVernay, who fell out with Disney over creative issues and chose not to be a part of the MCU, are now making films for the DCEU, confirming a suspicion that for all its faults the DCEU is a lot more filmmaker-orientated and supportive of creative freedom than Disney.

You're allowed to make mistakes at Warner Bros/DC which is ultimately a good thing for creativity.  By contrast, Disney's overly-PC, family-conscious image means it won't accept any slight transgression or mistake on the part of its talent, unless it can be hypocritically brushed under the carpet.

I fail to see how Disney choosing to maintain a certain standard of conduct that falls in line with the "Disney image" is a bad thing. If other people (using your example, WB) want to have a longer leash, fine, but Disney has had this image since the 1930s. If they want to keep that going at the cost of personnel who threaten it in some way, that's their prerogative. I can appreciate forgiving mistakes (Lord knows I've made mine and been fortunate to have many of them forgiven) but I can also appreciate sticking to your way of doing things even if it means cutting ties with someone who's made some big contributions to the company. A far bigger example than Gunn would be John Lassater, who was "the guy" at PIxar but was shown the door for workplace misconduct. 

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 23 Jul  2018, 03:08

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18Hilarious. Because feeling like tweets about sex acts with kids are deplorable is moral grandstanding and self righteous. Right. Got it.

Going insane over it is moral grandstanding. And self-righteous.

And not lady-like at all, sadly.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18Meanwhile I'm going to go morally grandstand some more

So I see.

Quote from: Catwoman on Sun, 22 Jul  2018, 18:18and pray that you don't have any immediate dealings with children if you think sh*t like that can be okay.

Thankfully the only child I have had to deal with lately is you.

Nice misdirect. If you want to continue to harp on one use of all caps as though the entirety of my comments have been like that, have at it. I can only assume that means you're incapable of answering my question as to what context makes those kinds of jokes okay (which actually may be better for you than if you could). And if the "not lady-like at all, sadly" comment was meant to offend me, try a little harder next time. I haven't worried about being "lady-like" since I was 14 years old.

I've never thought I'd reply back to johnnygobbs ever again, but I need to get this off my chest.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 21 Jul  2018, 12:34
Gunn apologised for his Tweets years ago.  He realised they were a mistake.

When did that happen? The only time I'm aware of Gunn apologising for anything was writing an official statement to GLAAD in 2012, because he came under fire for making sexist and homophobic jokes the year before. He didn't mention anything about the rape and pedophilia comments during this time.

Source: https://hollywoodreporter.com/news/guardians-galaxy-director-james-gunn-395796

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Mon, 23 Jul  2018, 15:21
When Selma Blair was battling with whether to out and shame the filmmaker, James Toback, who sexually assaulted her some years ago, it was her friend, James Gunn, that helped her and gave her the strength to speak out about Toback

Then this makes it even worse, because the fact of the matter is he didn't even delete those awful tweets. If he had done so, I could've bought into the fans' defense that he had matured over time, and he'd definitely still be working at Marvel Studios right now. The whole world would most likely never have learned of what he had said. As I said many times before, he only has himself to blame. There is a reason why careers councilors warn people to be responsible with their social media profile nowadays, because it can hurt your job prospects. Gunn clearly doesn't understand this, the moron.

One has to wonder if his apology over his 2011 comments and helping Selma Blair was sincere, or it was a cynical ploy to protect his career. After all, there have been many people who fooled an entire community into being generous and upstanding citizens, but turned out to be complete monsters. For an extreme example, look up John Wayne Gacy. And as I've already said, Hollywood has its favourites when it comes to celebrities with dark histories, like Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. Nobody should look up to anybody in that industry as a source for moral guidance.

By the way, people who live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. A couple of months ago, Gunn was one of several people to accuse Jared Leto of preying on underage girls:

https://www.screengeek.net/2018/05/17/james-gunn-implies-jared-leto-is-a-pedophile/

I don't give a damn about Leto, and for all I know, the accusations could be true. But I wonder how does Gunn like it now people assume he's a pedophile, not only because of what he once wrote but because of his association with this Huston Huddleston?

Quote
(as opposed to someone who merely makes foolish jokes on Twitter).

Give me a break. This isn't like making tasteless jokes in the name of satire i.e. South Park. There was absolutely nothing funny about his f***ed up comments, especially if he implicates himself in wanting to molest children. Even by black comedy standards, the sh*t he wrote was utterly demented. To call what he wrote jokes is an insult to comedy.

Quote
Unlike many other comic-book movie directors, Gunn brings genuine warmth and colour to his films, something we haven't really seen in CBMs since the days of Tim Burton's Batman films.

Gunn isn't a visionary. The first GOTG was a good movie and definitely had heart, but the sequel, in my opinion, was overrated garbage. Making Drax into a complete and utter idiot who utters jokes about big turds wasn't funny. A backwards step from his stoic and tragic persona in the first film. His stupid quips at Mantis's expense was just dumb as making Peter Griffin abusing his daughter Meg for no reason other than to make him look like a mean-spirited jackass. It was a parody of the characters from the first film, and the jokes were much weaker and drawn out longer than necessary e.g. everything involving that Baby Groot and Rocket. Don't me get started on the forced surrogate father crap. Nothing in that film comes close to matching the genuinely emotional moments of Peter's sad backstory or Groot's heroic sacrifice.

Besides, given the questionable success of Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor Ragnarok (which I've never seen the whole thing, but saw enough scenes to be unimpressed by) and Infinity War, the standards of making a successful MCU film are pretty low nowadays. I think the franchise will do just fine without Gunn.

Quote
Also, if a woman tells you that a film is misogynist, you damn well listen to her.  It's not for men to decide what characters are and aren't sexist.  And so far the only people I've seen complain about Mantis and Gamora in the Guardians of the Galaxy films are men.  Well, to be quite honest, they know where to shove their opinions about 'sexism'.

What a load of sanctimonious garbage. A couple of things.

First of all, you need to look for more female critics, whether they're feminist or otherwise, who found the sequel having sexist undertones. I don't care too much for identity politics, but try telling what you said to this Asian female comic book fan who wrote a critique about the movie's adaptation of Mantis compared to the comics' source material.

Source: https://womenwriteaboutcomics.com/2017/08/need-talk-mantis-abuse-guardians-galaxy-2/

Second, if more women suddenly justify their hatred for Batman Returns because its supposed sexist treatment of women, are you going to simply agree with her? Do you think there is any basis for the supposed sexism of Lois Lane, Wonder Woman and the Amazons in Batman v Superman and Justice League?

Finally, I find your statement about men to be quite sexist itself, and terribly presumptuous. I, for one, grew up in a family household where I saw my mother getting emotionally abused by my father on a frequent basis. So excuse me if I take issue when a woman gets blatantly insulted and abused for the sake of cheap laughs.

Quote
For all the criticism levelled at the DCEU, from myself included, one has to credit WB/DC for treating its filmmakers and actors, including those like Jason Momoa who have made unfortunate comments in the past (during a "Game of Thrones" Comic Con panel a few years back Momoa joked about how he enjoyed playing Drogo because it gave him the chance to 'rape beautiful women'), like adults.

Momoa was an idiot. But one isolated moment isn't comparable to making a habit of of inappropriate behaviour, like Gunn did.

Quote
the DCEU is a lot more filmmaker-orientated and supportive of creative freedom than Disney.

Try telling that to Zack Snyder.

Despite a show of support from the whole cast on social media, and an idiotic campaign by fans titled #RehireJamesGunn, Disney has stood firm in its decision. Much to the anger and dismay of Dave Bautista, who went tweeted "Thanks @Disney for Making America Great Again".  ::)

Like many apologists, Bautista believes Gunn's firing was a smear campaign by "cybernazis" like this Mike Cernovich. Cernovich does seem to be a piece of sh*t as well judging by the tweets I saw of his, but I question the wisdom over claims he's a Neo-Nazi if he's married to an Iranian woman, and they have a child together. Nonetheless, it amuses me the fans refuse to see the fact Gunn is responsible for his own conduct that lead to his sacking.

Meanwhile, the third Guardians film is has been put on hold until further notice, with production crews told to look elsewhere for work for the time being.

Source: https://deadline.com/2018/08/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3-pre-production-crew-dismissed-as-project-goes-on-hold-1202452104/

James Gunn has been rehired to direct Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3.

https://www.businessinsider.com/disney-rehires-james-gunn-to-direct-guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-2019-3

I had no problem with Disney firing him for those horrid tweets (even though it disappointed me that the whole situation happened in the first place), I have no problem with them rehiring him either. Consensus seems to be he left that "shock jock" style persona that said that garbage behind years ago and is a good decent human being, so sure. Give him another shot. I know the Guardians movies and this one in particular weren't favorites of most of y'all, but I adored both, so I hope they can all get back to work without any issues.

Question is, what does this do for his Suicide Squad sequel?

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Mar  2019, 18:37Question is, what does this do for his Suicide Squad sequel?

Between Smith's departure and now this business with Gunn, I think I see some handwriting on the wall over there. Tough to make out right now but it looks like it says something like "Forget about it".

Alas...

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 15 Mar  2019, 19:57

Quote from: Catwoman on Fri, 15 Mar  2019, 18:37Question is, what does this do for his Suicide Squad sequel?

Between Smith's departure and now this business with Gunn, I think I see some handwriting on the wall over there. Tough to make out right now but it looks like it says something like "Forget about it".

Alas...

Knowing Warner Butchers' disastrous decisions as of late, this assumption is a little naive. It should happen, but it most likely won't.

So much for that Disney CEO hack Alan Fine stating Gunn's inappropriate remarks are inconsistent with the company's values.  ::) But then again, I'm not too surprised by this news. If anything has taught me about the defenses of Bryan Singer, Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson, Hollywood will go out to defend questionable people as long as they still have fans and it works in the industry's best interests. I don't know if Gunn ever abused somebody, but I don't think too highly of somebody making those "jokes" in that manner when Hollywood has been accused of having a culture of child abuse for years. Which leads to my next point that grinds my gears.

I'm now hearing Gunn was never actually "fired", and it was a lie to protect Disney's corporate interests to avoid risking the Fox deal. Now that it has gone ahead, they've conveniently made it public that he's "back". In my opinion, this ranks up there with the most distasteful PR stunt a movie studio has pulled ever since that prick Toby Emmerich lied about honouring Zack Snyder's true vision of JL.

I'm not able to express my distaste for this news very eloquently right now, so I'll quickly sum up my frustration: f*** James Gunn, f*** Disney and f*** the entire entertainment industry for that matter.