A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
It is funny when folks say 'old Marvel movies', it is easy to forget that none of them are more than 10 years old. They've just produced so many that it seems like we have decades worth.
I just looked, and GotG is 10/20, so truly right in the middle (for now).

In case anyone is curious about the franchises and where they fall in the placement of things, you’re welcome:

Iron Man- 1/3/7
Thor- 4/8/17
Captain America- 5/9/13
Avengers- 6/11/19/22
Guardians- 10/15/24?
Spider-Man- 16/23/?
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Advertisement
I just looked, and GotG is 10/20, so truly right in the middle (for now).

In case anyone is curious about the franchises and where they fall in the placement of things, you’re welcome:

Iron Man- 1/3/7
Thor- 4/8/17
Captain America- 5/9/13
Avengers- 6/11/19/22
Guardians- 10/15/24?
Spider-Man- 16/23/?
What do these numbers represent?
 

Pi on my Cake

Well-Known Member
Serenity was an effects-heavy Sci-Fi film for Universal. True, it didn't have nearly the budget of something like The Avengers, but it wasn't exactly a low-budget indie, either. I'm nitpicking, though. Carry on.
Fair enough. I always forget that was a theatrical release and not just a tv movie lol. Still, a lot of their big name directors come from either sitcoms, tv shows, or low budget films. Not many people handling their big films had much if any experience with big scale movies before Marvel. But you're right that some were more experienced than I realized.

Gunn was probably the most experienced director in big movies they have in their inner circle now that I think about it. The Scooby Doo movies may not be cinematic masterpieces but he had experience with effects heavy family action comedy adaptation franchises before GotG.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Except that what he did, while not to some peoples' tastes, wasn't criminal. None of it was personal attacks, either. Since the time those tweets were written, he has changed his behavior. We're going around in circles, though. You obviously feel more strongly about those tweets than I do. Fair enough.
None of it was personal attacks? Huh? He certainly talked about "attacking" Justin Bieber and raping women. You guys really need to stop dismissing this stuff. You can say he apologized, you can say it is old, but it looks really bad when you try to downplay what he did say. I'd rather he said "so and so is ugly or stupid" or that type of thing instead of the truly vile stuff he did. Trust me, this "oh it wasn't so bad!" stuff is going to bite you guys in the behind in the future.

It's not that I "feel more strongly" about them - I just don't think we should be glossing over what they were. I didn't say they were criminal, either. I have said since the very beginning I was not happy he was fired over this. But I also think people are being a bit selective by trying to make it out like they were just a few innocent jokes.

I mean, he was writing "joke" posts about having sex with Justin Bieber...when Bieber was only 16. Would we be quite so quick to dismiss them if these "resurfaced" sex jokes were instead about raping Daktoa Fanning, and he was conservative? I don't think so. We all know it would be totally different.

And while it seems people want to pretend they were just pedophile "jokes", because somehow that means it is a "conspiracy" or whatever, they are also ignoring the female rape "jokes" - which make it more 'real'. Let's also not forget about the SHEER VOLUME of material we are talking about.

Just to say they were jokes that "were not to some people's taste" is totally whitewashing them. These were sick, terrible things that even ten years ago it wasn't right to say. It wasn't just some momentary lack of judgement. I don't care if others were doing it, or that some people thought it was cool and edgy - these types of statements were never okay.

I hate to have to point all this out, but when you guys systematically ignore the facts and keep trying to make it out like he is some 100% victim who did nothing whatsoever wrong to begin with, that this is all just a-OK behavior, but these darn conservative crazies are just going after him out of thin air, I can't help but do a reality check as to what it really is we are talking about.
 
Last edited:

doctornick

Well-Known Member
Subletting those rights?
I’ve only seen those early MCU films on the FX channels.
I'm talking about the Star Wars films, not Marvel (wasn't that what the article was about?). Fox owns the distribution rights to the first two trilogies and would have been the ones who licensed to Turner for those 6 films. Obviously the rights will go to Disney once the purchase of Fox is completed.
 

AEfx

Well-Known Member
And Whedon had basically only done tv before Avengers.
One does not call "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" something like "only TV"!!!!

;)

Disney isn't picking random people of the street, but by big movie standards they tend to mostly go for rookies and unproven talents.
Yeah, I really, really don't think the talent pool for directors is gong to be tainted over this. I'm sure there are plenty of very capable if not brilliant folks out there who, you know, didn't do crap like this to begin with to have "resurface" later.
 

asianway

Well-Known Member
None of it was personal attacks? Huh? He certainly talked about "attacking" Justin Bieber and raping women. You guys really need to stop dismissing this stuff. You can say he apologized, you can say it is old, but it looks really bad when you try to downplay what he did say. I'd rather he said "so and so is ugly or stupid" or that type of thing instead of the truly vile stuff he did. Trust me, this "oh it wasn't so bad!" stuff is going to bite you guys in the behind in the future.

It's not that I "feel more strongly" about them - I just don't think we should be glossing over what they were. I didn't say they were criminal, either. I have said since the very beginning I was not happy he was fired over this. But I also think people are being a bit selective by trying to make it out like they were just a few innocent jokes.

I mean, he was writing "joke" posts about having sex with Justin Bieber...when Bieber was only 16. Would we be quite so quick to dismiss them if these "resurfaced" sex jokes were instead about raping Daktoa Fanning, and he was conservative? I don't think so. We all know it would be totally different.

And while it seems people want to pretend they were just pedophile "jokes", because somehow that means it is a "conspiracy" or whatever, they are also ignoring the female rape "jokes" - which make it more 'real'. Let's also not forget about the SHEER VOLUME of material we are talking about.

Just to say they were jokes that "were not to some people's taste" is totally whitewashing them. These were sick, terrible things that even ten years ago it wasn't right to say. It wasn't just some momentary lack of judgement. I don't care if others were doing it, or that some people thought it was cool and edgy - these types of statements were never okay.

I hate to have to point all this out, but when you guys systematically ignore the facts and keep trying to make it out like he is some 100% victim who did nothing whatsoever wrong to begin with, that this is all just a-OK behavior, but these darn conservative crazies are just going after him out of thin air, I can't help but do a reality check as to what it really is we are talking about.
I still don’t see where he apologized for anything but the jokes that offended the gay community
 

Pixieish

Well-Known Member
I still don’t see where he apologized for anything but the jokes that offended the gay community
I can't find it at the moment, but he did an interview in 2016 or 2017 in which he spoke about his Twitter behavior and he referred to himself as having been "a bad guy" in regards to the tweets in question.

EDIT: And there wasn't even any controversy going on at the time of the interview. He was talking about how much making the GotG films had helped him to grow as a person.
 

Pi on my Cake

Well-Known Member
One does not call "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer" and "Angel" something like "only TV"!!!!

;)



Yeah, I really, really don't think the talent pool for directors is gong to be tainted over this. I'm sure there are plenty of very capable if not brilliant folks out there who, you know, didn't do crap like this to begin with to have "resurface" later.
Buffy and Angel are fantastic groundbreaking shows! But thats still a different beast than blockbusters with big name celebrities. The same way water parks can be amazing and groundbreaking but they are an inherently different experience than theme parks. And no one would call a water park a theme park! That would be silly! Right, Universal?
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Buffy and Angel are fantastic groundbreaking shows! But thats still a different beast than blockbusters with big name celebrities. The same way water parks can be amazing and groundbreaking but they are an inherently different experience than theme parks. And no one would call a water park a theme park! That would be silly! Right, Universal?
Well...

Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon would qualify as water theme parks.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Aside from the dates, which I fully admit I had incorrect, I think you're coloring things a bit. Nothing Walt did was illegal. Yes, WED and RETLAW (they were separate companies) were set up as Walt's private companies so that he could pursue his projects without being beholden to Disney stockholders (which, at that time, weren't a huge number of people because the stock was only sold on a limited basis; not like the huge public offering that came later). The work that was done by these companies were then licensed back to Walt Disney Productions for use in the parks and other projects. He did this so that he could maintain control over his projects because, after what he went through with Charles Mintz and Oswald, he wasn't about to let anyone else have a say. Totally understandable. He also did this so that he could ensure that his family fortune, which he absolutely earned, would remain separate from whatever outside forces might affect Walt Disney Productions. Yes, those companies made a lot of money from it. No, Roy wasn't a fan. None of it was illegal or unethical. It was smart.
It was incredibly sketchy... and why he had to settle. He shiponed resources directly from the company (without restitution) to his business. The whole licensing of his image and the scale of it were a complete snowball job as well. It was underhanded and would never fly by any ethics standard today. And even then, it wouldnt stand and why ultimatley the companies buried the problem and paid out to wrap it all up.

There is nothing to defend here except his end product
 

Pi on my Cake

Well-Known Member
Well...

Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon would qualify as water theme parks.
I'm not saying they aren't well themed. But the experience of a theme park is inherently different than that of a water park. Even well themed water parks like the Disney ones and, imo at least, volcano Bay.
 

smile

Well-Known Member
And no one would call a water park a theme park! That would be silly! Right, Universal?
Well...

Blizzard Beach and Typhoon Lagoon would qualify as water theme parks.
i think all the waterparks in orlando are pretty great, and will defend vb as the best, mainly for it's freshness...
but eye roll every time i see/hear that reference - for decades, the company down the way has had every right to push that and hasn't.
 

Princess Leia

Well-Known Member
Shame. It was very enjoyable. Haven’t really cared for Pooh since I was a little kid but this movie had me smiling beginning to end.
I really want to see it. It just seems like a flashback to childhood. However, Xi in China hates the idea that people are comparing him to Pooh, so...

On a related note, I swung by my parents house an hour ago and saw that my mom was wearing her Pooh shirt that she got at WDW awhile back. I don’t think that she has any idea that the movie exists, but if she’s wearing it to go to the theaters and see it without me, I will be very upset.
 
Top Bottom