Mike86

Sure, but at the same time the MCU films aren’t overtly violent or sexual or anything.

Under different subsidiaries that most people wouldn’t even know are owned by Disney without checking into it first. The types of films put out under something like the Buena Vista label or other labels aren’t marketed towards the same demographic as core Disney, Pixar, or Marvel Studios films. It’s pretty easy to see that no matter how you cut it. I don’t necessarily agree with what happened with Gunn but I understand it.

Jay G.

Well, neither were the GOTG films, so B5Erik's complaints about them are illogical, if not an outright cynical ploy to try and damn Gunn after the fact.

And MCU films haven't been that yet. What happens when the Disney/Fox merger goes through and Deadpool/X-Men get incorporated back into Marvel Studios? Will Marvel try and tone them down, or cancel any R-rated projects? Will they keep them outside of the MCU? And even if they're not "MCU," they're still "Disney" by the logic of some in here.

There's room in Marvel, and even the MCU, for content like what's in the two GOTG films. Gunn didn't do anything that the majority of parents objected to in those films. And nobody was complaining that Gunn was hired despite past films that could be considered offensive or shocking. I mean, he had just directed Super prior to the GOTG gig, and The Belko Experiment, based on his script, has come out since.

B5Erik's pearl clutching is just wrong, and actually may be disingenuous.

DaveyJoe

Isn't this the guy that thinks MeToo has gone too far and now he can't even talk to women in his corporate job? I wonder why he's supportive of this situation...

slop101

Oh, I see, we're moving goalposts now?

Well, most of Marvel Studio's movies have been PG-13 (ie, not family friendly), and their Netfilx shows, while not rated, would definitely get R ratings.

cultshock

There would be a lot of pearl clutching over the "Frank's Little Beauties" episode of Always Sunny. (which, cringe worthy subject matter aside was very funny)

B5Erik

Marvel Studios' movies are generally rated PG-13 for violence, not sexual content.

Different people run the TV side.

Jay G.

I just checked Netflix:

Daredevil is TV-MA
Punisher is TV-MA
Jessica Jones is TV-MA
Iron Fist is TV-MA
Luke Cage is TV-MA
Defenders is TV-MA

These are Marvel Studios productions, and are loosely tied to the MCU.

Jay G.

Except GOTG, because sex and penis jokes, OMG!

Didn't the first Marvel Studios film have Iron Man very quickly seducing a reporter, and Pepper Pots coming in the next morning to see her out?

So it's ok for Marvel/Disney to have mature stuff, as long as it's only on TV?

dex14

They’re actual ABC Studio Productions in association with Marvel TV. Still all under the Disney umbrella.

Jay G.

Maybe Danny Devito should direct GOTG 3.

DaveyJoe

Bonus points for a necrophilia joke in that episode as well.

dex14

Disney will be owning this soon too. Will it no longer be available? Should it be deleted from existence? I think not.

B5Erik

But the TV side is run by someone else with a different agenda.

I felt a lot differently about sexual content in movies that are otherwise family friendly before I had a kid. After that I didn't just look at it as, "Am I offended?" But more as, "Is this really appropriate or necessary?" Especially given how comic book movies naturally appeal to kids.

And I'm certainly not in a minority. Most parents in this country feel much the same way about this stuff. You're always looking out for your kids and, by extension, other peoples' kids.

Jay G.

True, although when the Netflix Marvel shows started, both Marvel Studios and Marvel TV were under Marvel Entertainment, under Disney, which is why there's the mentions of MCU events. Later, Kevin Feige got Marvel Studios moved out from under Marvel Entertainment due to clashes with Isaac Perlmutter. But Disney is still ultimately funding the TV-MA Marvel TV shows on Netflix.

Jay G.

So maybe don't take your kids to those movies. Would you let them watch the original Robocop just because Robocop appeals to kids?

You're demanding the Marvel films be something they never were because you, as a parent, want them to be a certain way. It's not James Gunn's fault you can't mentally handle the idea of your kids hearing a joke about sex.

slop101

Notice how he keeps moving the goalpost. First it was "Disney", then "Marvel", then "run by someone else"... I'm fucking LOLing at this shit!

His argument has completely gotten away from him, and he has no idea what he was even arguing for.

Obi-Wanma

Disney (or at least Marvel Studios/Kevin Feige) knew what they were getting when they hired Gunn. He was not a "family friendly" filmmaker. In fact, when he turned in his first draft of the script, in which he tried to tone it down, he was asked to put more "James Gunn" into it by Marvel.

It's not like they hired him to make a certain type of film and he snuck that stuff in there. He gave them what they asked for, and they were pleased with the results. If Marvel was unhappy with anything he was doing, they would have cut it from the film.

dex14

Yea! Just go see Storks because kids didn't actually come from having sex! They shouldn't know about sex and how it is the reason they exist!

Jay G.

Just a reference to that:
http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/gua...ngers-beatles/

B5Erik

My point is those jokes didn't make the movie any better. There could have been jokes about something else and the movie would have been just as good - and they would have been more family friendly. It was GUNN who wanted the sex and penis jokes because that's what he's obsessed with. They were gratuitous.

And comic book movies like that should be family friendly. Robocop has never been family friendly. Guardians of the Galaxy WAS a comic book that 9 year olds could read without parents having any objections.

My question is why do these movies need any sexual content? With Deadpool it's inherent in the character, but Guardians? It's not, or it wasn't until Gunn wrote those scripts.

People ARE bringing their kids to these movies because many of them don't know any better or they're just bad parents. Marvel does have some responsibility to take that into account. And, generally speaking, over the course of the last decade they've done a pretty good job with that, with only 3 exceptions that I can think of.

I'd ask why some people here are hell bent on movies having sexual content when it isn't called for. Why the seeming need to have sex in your movies, even when it's gratuitous and inappropriate given a large part of the audience?

I have no problem with sex in movies when it's genuinely called for. I've seen plenty of movies with sex and nudity, but it was part of what those movies were all about. Marvel movies don't fit in that category.

Jay G.

Well, it's a new argument from him. Just yesterday his argument was "there's just some subjects you can't joke about," and it's only today he's gotten to "Gunn corrupted the family friendly Marvel with his movies." It'll be interesting to see what his argument tomorrow will be.

dex14

Great. You watch a lot of porn. Sounds like you should check out James Gunn's webseries called PG Porn. Maybe that would suit your needs.

B5Erik

I still say that pedophilia, rape, and the Holocaust aren't the least bit funny. I would never joke about those things or make light of them. To me, only a total asshole would do that.

And I didn't say, "Gunn corrupted the family friendly Marvel with his movies," I said he put sex jokes in the Guardians movies that weren't needed and were inappropriate given the number of kids under 12 in the audience.

Why do you have a problem with that opinion?

dex14

Good thing the films were rated PG-13.

B5Erik

Parents don't pay much attention to that rating since it usually means violence, not sex. You do get that, right?