1/6 Hot Toys - MMS??? - GOTG Vol.2 - Drax the Destroyer
- Thread starter DasMuse
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,134
- Reaction score
- 4,085
That's what we're all waiting for....hell I'd be happy with just beefier...
Unless he does something major in the next Avengers film i doubt we will ever get another one.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,134
- Reaction score
- 4,085
I know it doesn't necessarily mean much for a new HT Drax but I had to post this somewhere !
How awesome is that !!....and we get a hopefully much better Suicide Squad. Win-win !!!
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/24...urned-to-direct-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How awesome is that !!....and we get a hopefully much better Suicide Squad. Win-win !!!
https://www.cinemablend.com/news/24...urned-to-direct-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-3
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SilverStar17
Super Freak
As far as GotG films go, it’s good. As far as sending a consistent message as to what the “rules” are for society, it’s bad.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,134
- Reaction score
- 4,085
Don't know if I agree with the last point. I personally take it as a fair second chance. Which everyone deserves.
He'd done all he could to show that was all in the past. Plus the support of all the other directors and cast. That says a lot.
If he'd done nothing or defended his original comments, then yes it's a bad message to society. But that's not the case.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SilverStar17
Super Freak
To me, it’s just a matter of principle. The message it sends is:
Old hotness (as recent as days) - Comments from one’s past are reason alone to fire someone. Nobody changes.
New hotness - Comments from one’s past are from the past and people change, so we should leave them alone.
As I mentioned, as far as the GotG films goes, it’s great news. And I do agree that most deserve a second chance, especially when it’s something simple as ill-judged comments made in the past, as we’ve all said things we wish we could take back. So what are the “rules”?
Old hotness (as recent as days) - Comments from one’s past are reason alone to fire someone. Nobody changes.
New hotness - Comments from one’s past are from the past and people change, so we should leave them alone.
As I mentioned, as far as the GotG films goes, it’s great news. And I do agree that most deserve a second chance, especially when it’s something simple as ill-judged comments made in the past, as we’ve all said things we wish we could take back. So what are the “rules”?
Sassafras
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2016
- Messages
- 7,818
- Reaction score
- 2,364
Well for me it would be what's he like at home, or did he make some horrible comments he'd never make now. It would help if he funded some charities for child abuse victims. Talk is cheap. Actions speak louder than words, etc. Tho I give Gunn and whatever PR person he has from not dodging things.
But if it's just words - ugh - but still, it was years ago. If he makes another film and people really feel that strongly, they can 1) jump on Disney and 2) walk with their wallets.
Tho to me wrong or right, Disney should've stuck by whatever decision they made. This smells more like trying to ensure the money keeps rolling in vs. risking a new director re a popular franchise. Wow, Disney is really worried about their next phases I guess.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
Agreed on all accounts. Especially that actions speak louder than words.
However, as I said, people are currently being fired and mobs are clamoring for people to either get fired or resign from positions based alone on comments they said or made on social media, no matter how long ago it was, that they have said they no longer espouse, have condemned, and apologized for. Yet, they were still fired or people are still clamoring for them to get fired. So that being the case, I think it just confuses what the “rules” are that we as a society can all agree on. Are ill-judged comments alone, no matter how long ago they were made, grounds for someone to get fired or have to resign, or should we be forgiving?
If the latter, then others who were fired as a result of ill-judged comments made in the past should still have jobs or be on the air, or able to still host award shows in Hollywood.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,134
- Reaction score
- 4,085
There can't be a "rule" for something like that. Has to be on a case by case basis.
What was said, how long ago. Where that person is now etc etc. What they have done to show they have now moved on.
Dont forget when Gunn posted that stuff he was working for smaller studios who were dealing in that sort of extreme in your face stuff. Plus he was young.
To me its like drink driving. Someone gets time for drink driving when they are 18. Should they be treated as a drinker when they are 40 ? If they are still drinking and have other offences then yes. If they have moved on and grown up then no.
Again case by case as far as I'm concerned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What was said, how long ago. Where that person is now etc etc. What they have done to show they have now moved on.
Dont forget when Gunn posted that stuff he was working for smaller studios who were dealing in that sort of extreme in your face stuff. Plus he was young.
To me its like drink driving. Someone gets time for drink driving when they are 18. Should they be treated as a drinker when they are 40 ? If they are still drinking and have other offences then yes. If they have moved on and grown up then no.
Again case by case as far as I'm concerned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SilverStar17
Super Freak
Why can’t there? It’s a simple, fair, basic question to me that’s predicated on principle: Are one’s offensive comments made in the past enough to attack their character now in the present, and demand that they be fired on those past comments alone, or aren’t they? Because if it’s “case by case,” someone would then have to explain how past comments about pedophilia and rape deserve sympathy as long as the person apologizes, but comments about homophobia don’t, for instance.
Are we as a society to be forgiving of remarks made in the past as long as that person apologizes for it and is contrite? Or are apologies now no longer good enough?
What are the “rules” now?
Are we as a society to be forgiving of remarks made in the past as long as that person apologizes for it and is contrite? Or are apologies now no longer good enough?
What are the “rules” now?
When someone seems to have genuinely changed and expresses sincere remorse, as Gunn has, then I have no problem giving them a second chance. But when it's someone like, say, Tucker Carlson, who clearly remains the same awful and sleazy person he always was, and barely even tries to apologize, then it's a different matter.
I agree though that this rush to dig up old tweets and comments in an effort to fire someone is not a good trend.
I agree though that this rush to dig up old tweets and comments in an effort to fire someone is not a good trend.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
So if it’s someone you disagree with politically, then we shouldn’t be forgiving. Interesting. How about Kevin Hart’s case? Do you think he should have been able to host the Oscars? Roseanne? Both apologized with genuine contrition. Are apologies good enough, or no?
But at least we agree that we have regressed as a society by trying to dig up old tweets on people we disagree with in the present politically, and get them fired over it.
But at least we agree that we have regressed as a society by trying to dig up old tweets on people we disagree with in the present politically, and get them fired over it.
Lol, it goes beyond disagreeing with him politically. It's his whole smug, obnoxious attitude and the fact he sees nothing wrong with the comments he made. Not sure about Kevin Hart, but Roseanne has a history of apologizing and making more wacky comments right after so I'm not sure how seriously to take her.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
Oh ok. So if you simply personally don’t like the person (part of it being because we disagree with them politically), then we shouldn’t be forgiving and hold them to a different standard. So are apologies good enough, or no? Or do we just need to make them seem believable?
It’s a fair, honest question for how we go forward as a society, so that way everyone is held to the same standards.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2018
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 6
I think you're missing something important behind this and it is intent and context. Boiling it down to a simple "if you like them its okay, if you don't its not" is not correct and coming up with one single rule that works for everyone isn't possible.
James Gunn's tweets, were Jokes. Ill informed and crass jokes, but jokes none the less from a different time. He said them to be edgy but dollars to donuts he didn't do it out of hate. He apologized then, and now for it and has showed through his actions and support he has changed.
As for Rosanne she, in 2018, compared a Black person to an ape........ then she blamed her sleeping medication.
To me, they both had different intents behind their actions, at different times, and had different ways of dealing with them which is why they are held to different rules.
This stuff isn't black and white and context is key.
SilverStar17
Super Freak
So as long as they were made in jest, then it’s ok? Even if that joke offends people?
Joy Reid made intended homophobic remarks in a blog in the past, that weren’t jokes. Admitted it, apologized, then blamed it on hackers. Not a peep from anyone. Kevin Hart’s homophobic tweets were made in jest. He was burned at the stake because they can still be found offensive.
I feel I’ve asked a simple, straight question, but the responses I’ve received have been all across the chart:
- everyone deserves a second chance
- it’s a case by case basis
- as long as their apology seems believable to me
- if I don’t like them, then they shouldn’t be forgiven
- it was just a joke
- it’s the perceived intent that matters
Most of those are subjective, not objective.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,134
- Reaction score
- 4,085
I think that's exactly the point. It's not black and white. No single answer to your simple question. The answers reflect that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SilverStar17
Super Freak
I’ve offered rebuttals with examples of situations that consisted of similar circumstances yet yielded a different reaction and different consequences, but they were never, or haven’t been answered.
I'm glad they are bringing Gunn back. Even though i didn't like guardians 2 that much i still like the idea of him finishing what he started. They were going to use his script anyways, why not just let him direct. Hopefully he will close out with something as good as Guardians 1, and setup something cool for more cosmic Marvel movies.
And i agree with the other posters, it should be on a case by case basis, no single set of rules will ever fit for every situation. I don't think they are bringing him back because he is sorry or is believable, i think they realized they made a mistake in firing him and are trying to correct that. I doubt ABC will feel the same way about Roseanne.
And i agree with the other posters, it should be on a case by case basis, no single set of rules will ever fit for every situation. I don't think they are bringing him back because he is sorry or is believable, i think they realized they made a mistake in firing him and are trying to correct that. I doubt ABC will feel the same way about Roseanne.
Similar threads
