Barnack

You mean a professional workplace that would have been tolerated for employees to have publicly made statements like these in the past. At my job my boss and employees do them at the workplace (outside the US too, really different work culture). I would imagine construction and many profession would tolerate that type of social media account, place with a strong union (could imagine an union letting an employee getting fired for joke made before being hired on twitter ?), if you listen to the Bad Wizard podcast they make racist, sexist, rape etc... jokes pretty much every episode and get their jobs as university teacher and it is a widely listened too podcast.

It is true, but it is close to irrelevant who and why the person bring those tweet back to the spotlight to how they should be judged too. Because it is a full untrusty Internet person doing it and not a serious media, it is important to bring it up, just for: 1) People reading anything about it, to make sure it is true. 2) Make some effort to get the context (like the people trying to make it look like he was hosting some pedo video on is platform sent by someone that pleaded guilty to own child pornography, don't read it and judge it, at least try the youtube link that is in the screenshot before judging.... you know this is a total alt-right hit piece going on. But once those are said, cernovich being an a--hole is a well known fact and irrelevant to how one should perceived James Gunn action, it is just a sad bad effect to empower him, but if someone really think it is worthy of destroying someone career and character, should not matter from who the story started.

Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but exit poll showed a 73% of the audience mentioning Dwayne Johnson has a reason they came see the movie in theater of a 25m opener and the way it seem to open in China I am not sure how Skyscraper would be a good example to say star power is irrelevant, do you really think that with an unknown in the lead role that movie does an almost exact same performance in almost if not all markets ? (say in the +/-4% box office)

Looking from the last 2 decade make it even more impressive, since 2000 for wide release of over 1,500 theater (not putting that big of a theater count limit) they all did the superstar 20m OW mark except Out of Time with 16.17m, one of is non MPAA studio release and obviously Roman Isreal (just 1,669 theater too and small budget). That what succeeding at opening 17 wide release on 19.... 89.4% of the times above 20m Dicaprio in the 2000s, he has 12 movies that started wide with 1,500 theater, half missed the 20m OW mark (to be fair Wolf was a december release with 3 hours run time making the 18.3m OW that above making 20m in the summer with a 2 hours movie), 50% of the time above 20m. Some went wide after Aviator, Revolutionnary Road, Revenant of those 3 only Revenant reached 20m in the weekend it went wide. Obviously DiCaprio worldwide upside is much bigger and take on leggier type of project than frontloaded genre usually, but still, that show how big Denzel capacity at opening movie has just been crazy and like a clockwork, from the Sony leak how close studio seem to be able to predict what he will do show that, but that is also because of how similar, to almost exactly the same many of those title are, a la Liam Neelson. Cruise started wide 19 times in the 2000s like Denzel, missed 20m OW just 3 times also quite impressive, 84% of the time above 20m Tom Hanks started wide 18 times, missed 8 times, 55% of time above 20m. After Fast 5, Dwayne Johnson always went wide right away and did it 15 times, he missed 20m OW only 3 times, an also very good 80% of the time

Probably they realized that a while ago with Showman/Baby Driver/Beauty and the beast in 2017 if not with La la land. Already all of those announced: Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! Uni. 7/20/18 A Star is Born (2018) WB 10/5/18 Stuck (2018) Free 10/26/18 Anna and the Apocalypse Orion 11/30/18 Wicked Uni. 12/20/19 Valley Girl (2018) MGM TBD And many project rumored / in the way / pre-prod: http://www.playbill.com/article/schedule-of-upcoming-movie-musical-adaptations-com-216487

I think it could be a cultural american/anglo-saxon ultra puritanism vs rest of the world a bit in play here. Many podcast for example make many rape and pedophilia jokes all the times (and because they are long form audio content just listened by actual fan that have the context, when they are not celebrity podcast, can still get away with it), that put into a text form and read alone could pass a horrible shitty stuff. There is more to the right to say horrible shitty stuff in play here, but also a who decide what is terrible shitty public stuff, there is really funny rape, murder, pedophilia, slavery, Shoah, 9-11/pearl harbor, Hitler, cancer, etc.... name it joke. Who decide which are good one, which are bad ? Specially when they were obviously made without trying to generate any harm or victim here (Those I have seen were victimless tweet, not at someone, no character assassination and so on)

This i doubt Cernovich can loose fan's from tweets, except if he get caught has a previous Clinton supporter or pro-gun control or something like that. It is still good to point it out to have reader not expect those guys to present stuff necessarily in a fair context. But the Cernovich guy is probably all about some Pedophilia giant circle in Hollywood and among democrats/pizzagate narrative anyway, not sure he pretend to care about rape joke, probably all about the kids stuff.

I feel the same (at least was my first impression), maybe not know but suspect something bigger than just tweets, because Guardian of the Galaxy 3 release is in 2020, this is so many news circle away for something so little that if I understand stopped before the release of Gotg 1 and was never under being a face of Disney. Or, they had a long fight with him about stopping is divisive twitter activities, maybe was even going against it's contract and they were already angry at him/disliking him and that was just what pushed it over the edge. That said, when people pointed out the Disney could have simply been in a: We really don't want to have a they fired Rosanne the good friend of the president but not the anti-Trump director narrative over their head going into one of the biggest corporate transaction in history that need the federal government approval situation, that did made sense also. If they Lasseter him back into Marvel after the transaction is all well done and nothing else come up, we could suspect that it was only that.

He is the obvious choice, Thor 3 was already quite close.

But MCU itself has a really strong family friendly branding to protect also. Has for the no qualms that is not 100% true, they tried hard to not distribute/stop production some of the movies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_9/11#Production) and didn't distribute some of them like harmony Korine was too out there Kids that the Weinstein bought back and distributed themselves and Dogma fearing the religious crowd reaction (they had Lions gates distribute it). https://www.eonline.com/news/37986/miramax-disney-dogged-by-dogma The Mouse roared...and Miramax blinked. In an attempt to shield the Walt Disney Co. from potential backlash over the upcoming satire Dogma, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, cochairs of the Mouse-owned "indie" studio Miramax, have decided to form their own company to acquire the film. The brothers Weinstein personally will shell out about $10 million for the rights to Dogma, then find another studio to distribute the Kevin Smith (Clerks, Chasing Amy) flick. "Disney is a target that's too vulnerable in a situation like this," Harvey Weinstein says in the Los Angeles Times. "They make family movies, and a protest could hurt them unnecessarily...We said, 'If this is a corporate problem for [Disney], let's solve it for them.' "

That the most obvious comparable right ?

Trade talked about 18m for Rampage second weekend and it made 20m, there was talk of 19-23m during Skyscraper first friday and it ended up doing 24.9, I could imagine the same happening here. Because that drop for a non sequel, that had low preview numbers and an ok cinemascore would be quite something, would show that Johnson turned itself and the signature Johnson movie so much into a franchise that they are starting to play like a franchise (with a very large fanbase the first weekend and big drops).

One would expect some people to find the video in question funny (and everyone posting is post / commenting about it without providing the actual video in question do look very questionable imo using the word hosted for what seem a simple youtube link is also used to make it sound like something that it was not all look like an alt-right hit job coverage clearly to make a simple mainstream youtube video sound like some illegal porn that needed to be hosted on a personal website, why not provide the context as best has possible) : There is something into a large group of young woman singing those lyrics in that almost religious choral genre, that would push someone trying to make a joke about it, by pushing how more inappropriate the response to the already inappropriate song can be. I think the joke attempt is in the large theme of creating a difference between the normal/accepted/expected response to something and the one delivered, some brain will find ironies and fun in that gap and bigger and more unacceptable that gap the more fun. Do you think he literally came in is face watching this (a video without anything sexual/sexy in it ?) and went on a public platform to talk about it ?

This board is a terrible place to talk about a movie like this, I am sure people that never goes to the movie talked about it when the sequel was announced and was one of the least forgetting movies of the 2000s.

Been a couple of season I have not watched, could be true (probably true after so long)

Many would take 6 month of prison over loosing a career if they had the choice I would think. The carelessness people think and act around people family live hood and life defining career has if it was nothing and less worst than a little bit of prison time is ridiculous.

Making animated obvious over the top character (or even a child in case of Cartman) create a distance that augment what is acceptable. When your stuff you push is made under your art it augment your liberty, than when it is said by yourself in person and not in character, and for Southpark the satire and the quality is so high that it also help.

Americans seem to completely conflate freedom of speech with law protecting freedom of speech/first amendment, has if it was the same when it is 2 completely different thing. Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction The law protect you from retaliation from the state yes, but freedom of speech is an international human concept that goes way over the law, same would go from respect and politeness that goes way over what the law describe. Having retaliation or civil sanction for what you said is absolutely a free speech issue, just not a first amendment issue.

For a sequel of one of the most beloved movie around the world of the 2000s that made 186m adjusted for ticket price, it could surprise and leg outs, but 40m OW is not in the high end of the possible for it imo, 55m would have not even surprised me. 40m would probably head up for doing less than the 2008 movie did with a 168m in 2018 dollar.

Were I am from it was until the lat 70s, 80s really, Elvis Presley could not come play here because of the church and some theater play had a really hard time to pass (and woman not giving birth to many children were still openly judged by the village priest in the 1980s).

That black director for black heroes, female director for female heroes, etc.. is limiting. The take of a female point of view on a male hero can also be interesting.

I think everyone get that part (specially a family oriented company) once there is an online outrage about it (and they seem that the company had issue with it only once the tweetosphere played it, not before). We also get why people that live off click-bait or want to attack someone for some motive does it. People that are not paid to do it that goes along is more mysterious.

They are paid professional service that can help you clean your Internet presence I would imagine (many not even famous woman with some online presence tend to use it to remove from the Internet phone/address information to reduce the amount of real life harassment they receive weekly). Disney must have known considering those story came out back in the days when he got hired for GOTG, I must imagine he deleted a lot of them a long time ago and some people backup them back then.

Somewhat, but Gunns was a very liberal figure and anti-Trump type and lost is jobs with them, so if this is the angle you are referring too it does not apply much here.

Condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless I have not read the transphobic material, so maybe, but did he did that ? (a dark humor joke only work if the subject treated is regarded as bad and blame worthy, the joke is extremely flat if it is not going too far in the eye of the people reading it/making it and for a non-comedian like Gunn even with the edge they are still not quite punchy it is usually the reverse of regarding those taboo subject as harmless/acceptable, you cannot make dark humor with acceptable subject) I would say that actually condoning pedophilia or rape is extremely edgy, you think it is mainstream ? People do not necessarily care about Gunn and/or certainly not about some Superheroes movies here, there is much more at stake than movies.