James Gunn dropped from GOTG 3

[Dum Dum Dugan]

-Repeatedly joked about molesting children over a several year period.

-One of his friends was a pedophile, a friend he coincidentally made jokes about sexually assaulting children to.

-Pedophilia themed party.


For a non-pedophile, it sure seems to be a recurring theme in his social life. That couldn't possibly effect Disney at all, couldn't possibly have an effect on future productions and the jobs those creates. Its all about poor Gunn being quoted accurately and relevant information around that coming to light.

So are you suggesting he's actually a pedophile now, and not someone who was known for using offensive edgy humor?

Is Gunn a priest too, since that's who he was dressed up as?

[CliffHanger2]

These aren't the same thing:





The second one is an intentional reference to a previous controversy.

Wow double post in reverse.

[Conch22]

I'm suggesting that when there are repeated sex scandals that make Hollywood look worse than the Catholic church for employing sexual predators and then this director tied to Disney seems to be going out of his way to seem overly friendly towards NAMBLA Americans, Disney cutting bait is understandable. Those three things together would put anyone under suspicion, not make it particularly shocking if it turned out they were guilty and potentially harm Disneys family friendly brand either way, so, as you seem content to not acknowledge the consequences of his actions stretch beyond him to the viability of future productions and the jobs those create, I will reiterate that point. I will also restate, if it wasn't clear, these studios can gamble with Gunn or Roseanne or not, depending on whether they think they will gain or lose money from that. From all appearances, the harm right now is people are really offended in both circumstances. That's brand damaging toxicity, if these companies want to sidestep that, that's their option so long as they covered themselves in that regard in terms of contracts

[CliffHanger2]

These aren't the same thing:





The second one is an intentional reference to a previous controversy.

Ha I give you points for stating the obvious. Yeah and he's been drawing scantily clad women and big booty super heroines for over a decade now-which wasn't controversial when he started. It became like that in the last 4-5 years or so. He was a target of the outrage mob before he started doing those parody covers.

[Raiders]

It does seem like a pattern is developing.
First the tweets, second the party, what’s the next shoe to drop?
There is no way Disney could keep him.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

I'm suggesting that when there are repeated sex scandals that make Hollywood look worse than the Catholic church for employing sexual predators and then this director tied to Disney seems to be going out of his way to seem overly friendly towards NAMBLA Americans, Disney cutting bait is understandable. Those three things together would put anyone under suspicion, not make it particularly shocking if it turned out they were guilty and potentially harm Disneys family friendly brand either way, so, as you seem content to not acknowledge the consequences of his actions stretch beyond him to the viability of future productions and the jobs those create, I will reiterate that point. I will also restate, if it wasn't clear, these studios can gamble with Gunn or Roseanne or not, depending on whether they think they will gain or lose money from that. From all appearances, the harm right now is people are really offended in both circumstances. That's brand damaging toxicity, if these companies want to sidestep that, that's their option so long as they covered themselves in that regard in terms of contracts

Making fun of pedophiles is now being overly friendly to NAMBLA Americans, got it. I can't tell if you're concern trolling or actually believe that nonsense.

And Sarah Silverman's humor wasn't exactly family-friendly either, but she's still got a job at Disney.

Not to mention the actors with an actual history of domestic violence, like Johnny Depp or Billy Dee Williams.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

It does seem like a pattern is developing.
First the tweets, second the party, what’s the next shoe to drop?
There is no way Disney could keep him.

The only "pattern" is that the guy who did films for Troma had an offensive sense of humor.

[Carabas]

Ha I give you points for stating the obvious. Yeah and he's been drawing scantily clad women and big booty super heroines for over a decade now-which wasn't controversial when he started. It became like that in the last 4-5 years or so. He was a target of the outrage mob before he started doing those parody covers.

It doesn't seem like he was the target of anything before he threw himself on the Manara grenade like a veritable Captain Dudebro.
And he has since gone out of his way to keep poking the bear over and over again.

[Sighphi]

These aren't the same thing:





The second one is an intentional reference to a previous controversy.

It's not hard to find raunchy Liberty Meadows stuff, come on.

[Tuck]

It's not hard to find raunchy Liberty Meadows stuff, come on.

I wouldn't call then raunchy. They fall more under the category of "cheeky".

There's a difference between what Cho normally draws and the Manara erotic art (that, much like Gunn, Marvel knew who they hired and then got surprised at his work).

(Also, there is nothing wrong with Manara's work. The issue was always the appropriateness of that kind of a cover for a mainstream Marvel superhero book.)

[CliffHanger2]

It doesn't seem like he was the target of anything before he threw himself on the Manara grenade like a veritable Captain Dudebro.
And he has since gone out of his way to keep poking the bear over and over again.

Really? So he was poking the bear when he drew 3 inches of wws bikini and Rucka lost his mind over it? I don't think so.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

Really? So he was poking the bear when he drew 3 inches of wws bikini and Rucka lost his mind over it? I don't think so.

The only one who threw a fit was Cho because WW's panties weren't included in the final cover.

[Conch22]

Making fun of pedophiles is now being overly friendly to NAMBLA Americans, got it. I can't tell if you're concern trolling or actually believe that nonsense.

And Sarah Silverman's humor wasn't exactly family-friendly either, but she's still got a job at Disney.

Not to mention the actors with an actual history of domestic violence, like Johnny Depp or Billy Dee Williams.

I wasn't aware someone saying they'd like to sexually molest children and mentioning specific ages (age 3 came up a lot) fell under the category of mocking. It seems to fall under the category of deadpan pretending you are one over a several year period, then going to a pedophilia theme party, laughing publicly about how seeing monkey ejaculant hit a kids face was "the funniest thing you've ever seen", then joking about preying on children with a friend, who then happens to be caught with child porn. And you find it surprising when this all is brought to light as years of association with predation of children, through theme parties, numerous public statements and at least one friend, that people are concerned there could be more to this. That this looks like a very disturbing pattern and at the least, with the current sex scandals, Disney might want to avoid that association and have every right to do so.

Comparing someone pretending for the lulz to have a fondness for child abuse for years, not as a comedy skit, not as a clearly defined this is me doing a skit, but just presenting themselves like that to the world for years, having personal associations with theme parties around it and a friend who happened to be this thing he was pretending to maybe be as a joke. There's alot of different instances that make it look like where there's smoke, there's fire. I get you're a fan or think he's been unfairly framed by the Alt-right with things he actually said and circumstances he chose to be in. Let me put it this way, I have no idea if you have kids, nieces or nephews, they need a baby sitter for a night and the resume comes with everything aforementioned, hundreds of social media posts about child molestation and what age they prefer kids as "satire", making those comments to a friend who happened to be a pedophile, child predation theme parties, person doesn't deny it, but their best friend insists this babysitters a good guy who deserves this job, you would seriously okay that babysitter over practically any other candidate. I highly doubt it, because it looks really bad. Gunn may be completely innocent but his past associations and remarks make him look like a part of that world. If Disney wants to not associate with that, having a large parent & child demographic, I don't blame them. Also, don't make an equivalence with child abuse and domestic abuse cases between 2 adults as some moral equivalence. It's not, full stop.


How did Don Lemon put Trump? If he's not racist, he's the most racist friendly president I've seen. Well, if Gunn isn't a pedophile, he's the most pedophile friendly director I've seen.

[Dum Dum Dugan]

I wasn't aware someone saying they'd like to sexually molest children and mentioning specific ages (age 3 came up a lot) fell under the category of mocking. It seems to fall under the category of deadpan pretending you are one over a several year period, then going to a pedophilia theme party, laughing publicly about how seeing monkey ejaculant hit a kids face was "the funniest thing you've ever seen", then joking about preying on children with a friend, who then happens to be caught with child porn. And you find it surprising when this all is brought to light as years of association with predation of children, through theme parties, numerous public statements and at least one friend, that people are concerned there could be more to this. That this looks like a very disturbing pattern and at the least, with the current sex scandals, Disney might want to avoid that association and have every right to do so.

Comparing someone pretending for the lulz to have a fondness for child abuse for years, not as a comedy skit, not as a clearly defined this is me doing a skit, but just presenting themselves like that to the world for years, having personal associations with theme parties around it and a friend who happened to be this thing he was pretending to maybe be as a joke. There's alot of different instances that make it look like where there's smoke, there's fire. I get you're a fan or think he's been unfairly framed by the Alt-right with things he actually said and circumstances he chose to be in. Let me put it this way, I have no idea if you have kids, nieces or nephews, they need a baby sitter for a night and the resume comes with everything aforementioned, hundreds of social media posts about child molestation and what age they prefer kids as "satire", making those comments to a friend who happened to be a pedophile, child predation theme parties, person doesn't deny it, but their best friend insists this babysitters a good guy who deserves this job, you would seriously okay that babysitter over practically any other candidate. I highly doubt it, because it looks really bad. Gunn may be completely innocent but his past associations and remarks make him look like a part of that world. If Disney wants to not associate with that, having a large parent & child demographic, I don't blame them. Also, don't make an equivalence with child abuse and domestic abuse cases between 2 adults as some moral equivalence. It's not, full stop.


How did Don Lemon put Trump? If he's not racist, he's the most racist friendly president I've seen. Well, if Gunn isn't a pedophile, he's the most pedophile friendly director I've seen.

are you seriously arguing that Gunn making some tasteless jokes is worse than somebody actually beating up their wife or girlfriend?

And no, it'd only be comparable to Trump being a racist if Gunn was legitimately defending pedophiles, advocating for consent laws to be lowered, etc. Not making edgy jokes in an attempt to be funny a decade ago.

And Sarah Silverman has joked about child molestation on her twitter before, too. As have other comedians like Michael Ian Black. Comedians saying offensive stuff is nothing new, and the conservatives clutching their pearls right now trying to act offended when they're really just digging for ammo to smear anyone critical of Trump is painfully transparent.

[Conch22]

Your only acknowledging the jokes, not everything surrounding them that makes whether they're jokes questionable.


Most racist friendly president, most pedo-friendly director, given Gunns behaviour which you're deliberately ignoring the context of, sounds an apt comparison.

"Also, don't make an equivalence with child abuse and and domestic cases between 2 adults as some moral equivalence. It's not, full stop."


You didn't answer the babysitter question. Someone comes in with that history that isn't Gunn, all those suspicious connections to and coincidences regarding pedophilia, are you looking for the next babysitter or are you sticking with Gunns messy track record?


If you had apprehension that that other person wouldn't be as ready for sainthood as Gunn seems to be to you in that persons estimation, can you attempt to understand how this all looks very suspect, regardless of who Gunn pissed off, inspiring the highlight reel of his actions that isn't going to be undone?