Star Wars Writer Chuck Wendig Claims Marvel Fired Him For 'Vulgarity' And 'Too Much Politics' On His Social Media

Cover art for Shadow of Vader #1. (Image: Greg Smallwood, Marvel Comics)

At New York Comic Con last weekend, Marvel Comics officially announced Shadow of Vader, a five-part Star Wars miniseries written by Star Wars: Aftermath book trilogy scribe Chuck Wendig. Except, the last two issues will no longer be penned by Wendig, as the author has just revealed Marvel has fired him.

In a lengthy statement posted to Twitter this morning, Wendig confirmed he has been “fired” by Marvel from both the final two issues of Shadow of Vader, as well as “an as-yet-unannounced SW book”.

We reached out to Marvel Comics for a statement on Wendig’s departure, but a spokesperson would only confirm that the publisher and Wendig had parted ways. We also asked Lucasfilm for comment on Wendig’s claims but had not heard back at time of writing.

According to the writer, the decision came directly from the editor of Star Wars comics at Marvel, Mark Paniccia, who cited Wendig’s vocal presence on social media — discussing Star Wars, the reaction to the recent films in the saga such as The Last Jedi, and US politics — as a primary reason for the decision.

In Wendig’s own words, “it was too much politics, too much vulgarity, too much negativity on my part.”

The initial tweet of Wendig’s statement can be found above, but for easier reading, here is his statement in full:

So, here’s a thing that has happened – I just got fired from Marvel. Taken off issues 4 and 5 of SHADOW OF VADER, and taken off an as-yet-unannounced SW book. This might be a long thread, so apologies in advance.

(I hesitate to talk about this, because honestly, it gives the Worst Possible People a win, something they’ve wanted for a while. But I also feel like I’ve long held to honesty and forthrightness, and I don’t feel like lying when people realise I’m not on these books anymore.)

To rewind a little bit, when SW: AFTERMATH came out, I assume most know but maybe you don’t, I put some ahh, elements in there (LGBT characters) that were not received well by a certain subset of fandom.

That resulted in both a negative review campaign, found across various FB groups and other Worst Places on the Internet, that began mounting the very minute the book dropped online.

I was literally at a midnight release of the book, and when I got done, there were already a pile of one-star reviews piling up – which seemed strange, obviously. And scary, too. I didn’t understand what was happening at the time.

(And as a caveat, obviously I recognise that yes, some people just don’t like the book for the Usual Reasons, and people who hold those reasons are not to be lumped in with the more septic side of fandom. Tl;dr see also TLJ reviews.)

I also started receiving TONS of harassment – harassment that has gone on for years, harassment that has required me to contact local police and warn them of SWATting attempts, harassment across all corners of the Internet, here, FB, Reddit, YouTube.

Some of it was bot stuff, obviously, or sock puppets, but some of it was pretty creepy, and very personal. I didn’t call a lot of it out or even highlight, but it was there, a sort of... constant background noise.

(Christ, for an extra special treat go search for my name and check out the YouTube videos if you want an eye-opening glimpse.)

And I was worried of course because, jeez, I thought I had screwed up. I wondered for a time if the book was bad. But then it hit list and stayed on list for four weeks – and the next two books hit list, too, and EMPIRE’S END landed even higher on the list than the first book.

And privately, I was told by folks inside LFL that there was no worry here, that they valued that I spoke out both speaking up for myself and for STAR WARS, which has always honestly been a progressive brand and company.

And it made me very proud to work for them, too, not just because — holy hell, basking in the glow of STAR WARS, but because the people were great, and they totally got it. (Hell, a lot of the people inside LFL have experience considerable harassment. I mean, that’s not news, but Kelly Marie-Tran? Bueller? Bueller?)

After I did HYPERION with Marvel, they hired me then to write the TFA adaptation, which meant I got to work with some wonderful folks – @hantos and @cracksh0t – on a project that was tricky, because it ended up being more a translation of the movie than an adaptation.

(I know Heather received some of the worst harassment in the entire industry – I can’t speak to how well Marvel did or did not protect her from it, but I know she was at the bottom of a major misery funnel from Comicsgate and their ilk. Far worse than I suffered.)

Still, I thought things were good, and I hoped to do more work with Marvel or SW or a combo of the two someday – comics isn’t really my “thing,” per se, but I felt like I was getting a handle on it.

Of course, the harassment continued – and it got worse again when TLJ came out. Which I’m sure is no surprise to anyone who has ever tweeted, “Hey, I really liked THE LAST JEDI!” That’s really when I started to see lots of YouTube videos and stuff about me and it was…

Well, it was creepy. And I’d seen other signs of people being… fired for political reasons, or folks like @ChelseaCain who was yanked around and was also the subject of considerable nastiness.

And then we announced SHADOW OF VADER juuuuust last weekend, and people were excited, and I thought everything was good. I was not made aware of any issues, and my online self has always been my online self, so. Except, yeah, no.

Today I got the call. I’m fired. Because of the negativity and vulgarity that my tweets bring. Seriously, that’s what Mark, the editor said. It was too much politics, too much vulgarity, too much negativity on my part.

Basically, because I was not civil.

Which, of course, is their decision to make. I’m not their boss. (And, turns out, they’re not the boss of me, either. Har har.) (I joke because otherwise, I cry.)

My understanding over this call was that this was a Marvel decision, not an LFL decision, but I can’t really confirm that. The editor said he had made the call. He seemed genuinely upset at my tweets and profanity, so maybe that’s accurate. And again, that’s his right to do so.

If they honestly feel that my presence will damage the book, I don’t want that. I want the book to shine, and artists like Juanan Ramirez and Greg Smallwood to do their amazing thing. Artists like that are gods in my mind, so I’m happy to not distract from their literal magic.

But it does set a troubling precedent. One we’ve seen already – James Gunn, Jessica White, and so on – of folks fired because they riled up the wasp’s nest of asterisk-gate.

And it seems odd to be mad that I’m mad about politics when – well, look around. Climate change, kids in cages, sexual harassers at the topmost tiers of power, and so on. A call for civility as the PA GOP candidate threatens Tom Wolf with a golf cleat stomping. I dunno, man.

I know it hands Comicsgate a big win. It will embolden them. But they won — I’m out of Marvel and, I guess for now, at least, out of any kind of Star Wars. Do your victory lap, I guess. (Just please leave me out of it.)

(All that being said, a lot of wonderful people still work inside those institutions and storyworlds, and I hope you’ll continue to support them and the stories they’re telling.)

To conclude: this is really quite chilling. And it breaks my heart. I am very sad, and worried for the country I live in, and the world, and for creative people all around. Courage to you all. I have a dire fear this is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

P.S. Vote in November like your life depends on it. Because it just might.

Wendig’s exit from Shadow of Vader marks merely the latest successful weaponisation of a supposed appeal to “civility” by online trolls. Notable past toxic cultural campaign Gamergate, and its copycat Comicsgate, cited the need for “civil” discourse while at the same time leveraging targeted campaigns of harassment (including doxxing and death threats) against people who championed progressive values or criticised US President Trump on social media.

These forces seek to force companies such as Marvel or their parent company Disney — as was the case in the firing of director James Gunn from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 — to cut ties with vocal, progressive talent in the hopes of avoiding online backlash. These campaigns only serve to harass and silence voices they disagree with and punish those voices for daring to talk back.


Comments

    It seems pretty simple.

    Don't be a shit head to anyone on social media. Don't lose your job.

      It really does seem pretty simple.

      Don't be a shithead by responding to shitheads on social media. Be the face of the company; weather any and all insults; roll over to abusive campaigns by parties acting in bad faith; tolerate intolerance lest you be labeled as intolerant; never stand up for anyone - including yourself; take responsibility for your company's public relations in your personal time and on your personal platform, with neither remuneration nor corporate support; always be accountable for everyone and everything on social media. Don't lose your job.

    If I talk aggressive politics and swear at people on social media where I can be clearly identified with my employer, I’d get fired too.

    These campaigns only serve to harass and silence voices they disagree with...
    Yeah, both sides of this divide have been guilty of that. This is the new normal now - if you don’t like somebody’s opinion, find out where they work and demand they get fired.

      Honestly, after what happened with Gunn, it wouldn't surprise me if Marvel is paying a lot more attention to their employees social media accounts, and acting to get rid of any toxic elements before they get any rude surprises down the line.

        Except the stuff with Gunn had come out years before and they knew about it when he was hired.

          James Gunn was the victim of a targeted political attack . He did nothing wrong and his employers just enabled a bunch of bottom-of-the-barrel pieces of shit.

    In all the negative reviews of his books that I'd seen, not one has mentioned the sexual orientation of the characters, but rather poor writing style. It was the execution rather than the content that was considered having brought the books down. If anything, I was seeing cautious optimism about the upcoming Shadow of Vader comic.

    Its interesting that the reason he was fired specifically mentioned the profanity and vulgarity of his tweets, which he doesn't really comment on. Given the personal, vulgar attacks people portraying themselves as 'Just' commit, and their constant surprise at being fired for doing so, there really does seem to be a kind of disconnect between what they think they're doing and what any reasonable adult sees them as doing.

    Oh well, 2018 seems to be 'The Year People Got Fired For Being A Dick On Social Media'. I wonder if any of them will have learnt their lesson by 2019.

      Have you considered that they’re not being honest with their review? If their issue is that he’s being too progressive with representation in writing or his social media presence, they’re not necessarily going to come right out and say that in the review because that’s a bit ridiculous. A more effective review bomb targets the quality of the product, not its politics. Not to say there weren’t lots of reviews that disliked his writing, but if what he says about the deluge of one-star reviews at the midnight release is true then that’s a telltale sign that many/most of those were the result of a targeted attack.

        Same old response.

        I swear you have blinkers on. Anyone who disagrees with you and those like you are redneck racist nazi's.

          Not trying to be agonistic. But some of us are angry to see an IP we love go down the toilet.
          No matter what points are made, the response is always "oh, you're just a mysogynistic racist".

          I mean, really?

      Please understand that most racist, sexist, etc people will not outright tell you "I oppose this because I believe X folks are subhuman!!" (Ok, some of them, the most stupid and lacking awareness ones, will). Most of them , instead,will fabricate excuses that sound legit or normal to push against what they don't want. Want to know a cue to identify when such legit-sounding concerns are a mask to something else? Look out both for the intensity of the complaint and the organisational or systemic nature how it is enacted.

      I mean, things can definitely be poorly written (to name one of the common examples), either objectively or as a subjective appraisal based on your own sensibilities. I'm sure there are entertainment products that you think that for one reason or another are crap. Same for me and everybody else. But when a non-essential thing that you consume is not to your taste... do you feel the need to make a big fuss about it? Do you feel the need to find its creators' presence in social media and attack them? Downvote or 1-star every thing they ever done? Rally other people to do the same in your own social media? No, you, and any other sane person will choose never to waste your money or attention in it and walk away. By next day, you'll have forgotten about it permanently.

        Agreed. Little losers make it their business to bring others down based on fabricated excuses because they are cowards and won’t be direct. It’s passive aggressive rubbish

        Not sure why you got downvotes for this, seems like common sen-.. oh, I see who it was.

          Yep. Those two and a third one who may still appear usually look for my comments (and some other people's) on threads like this one and downvote on sight. It is clear that their intention is to place us into automoderation, which is something they have succeeded to do a few times.

          It was downvoted because one again, even when people dont like it for their reasons its suddently because racism sexism etc etc etc, the same BS alot of you always spout but hey, you dont get it and then claim "automoderation" as the reason so its pretty clear you dont get it.

            Yeah, except that if you actually read my post, I clearly mentioned that disliking something doesn't make you a bigot, but bigoted actions (such as harassment) prove that you are one.

            So if you tell me "I didn't like TLJ, but not because I'm a racist or anything", having no other reason to believe otherwise, I'll take your word for it. But if you cowardly downvote my posts in most comment threads instead of engaging me in discussion and said systematic downvoting places me into automoderation, rendering me unable to share my opinion, well. I can only logically conclude that you need me silenced because my words are inconvenient for your cause, i.e. you're a bigot.

            But let's not jump to conclusions, let's hear from you: why did you feel the need to downvote the post above if in it I clearly allowed the possibility that disliking the movie is entirely legitimate. Again, why did you feel the need to downvote it when the only people I condemned in it were the ones who engaged in harassment and targeted attacks? Which is what I have also done in so many other posts that you also have downvoted in the past. Logically, one could imagine that is because you either count yourself among the harassers or support or endorse them. However, instead of casting my judgment with a downvote (a courtesy that you haven't ever given me) I'm interacting with you. I look forward to your answer.

              Because you claimed that any one downvotes you is doing it because we want you in auto moderation. Rather than disagreeing with your opinion and arguments.

                Therein lies your problem, then: Downvotes are not to express disagreements. You use your words for that. A downvote is a "soft" reporting tool, meant to stop users from harassment, abusive language, discrimination, spreading falsehoods, etc. Sadly, certain people in Kotaku do weaponise it against legitimate users. As I said in another comment, if you tell me that's not your intention, I'll believe you. Still, even if it wasn't your intention, I must let you know that your downvoting has at least once put me into automoderation and that puts you in the dubious company of people who I know that intently abuse the downvote system.

                So, if it's truly not your intention, please do be more mindful in the way how you use downvotes from now on.

                  Nope. I will still be using them for disagreements, If you have issues with that, take them up with Kotaku.

                Ok, just checking with you. I have made you aware that spamming downvotes place people in automoderation. Kotaku is clearly not going to address it, so it's up to the posters not to abuse the system.

                So you have been told that your actions, which are entirely unnecessary and non-essential, harm others your response are "whatever I won't change". Seems like I actually had pegged you correctly from the beginning then: someone who believes that the "rights" of other people only exist as far as you don't feel inconvenienced in the slightest. No wonder, then, that the kind of comments that you usually downvote are those defending the rights of folks that their voices and plights you rather didn't hear. Wait, no. Surely, it's because they are so "poorly written", right?

                  Once again, take it up with kotaku.

    Chuck was blocking LGBT on Twitter people for not liking his portrayal of LGBT people in his books. Not exactly a sign of someone who really cared about the people he was meant to be showing representation for in the first place. Him being fired for being vulgar and overall unprofessional was going to happen eventually when he was sending people death threats and the like.

    It's also not about sides winning, it's about not being a dick where your employer can see you and take action, something that's been basic employee behaviour standards for years. Chuck missed that memo.

    Be as much of tool online as you want when representing your own IP... but not when representing someone elses.

    Very glad to see him gone.

      The trouble these days is that employers consider you to be always representing their IP, even when you are doing something that has nothing to do with them, because your name is associated with them. If I write something on my own personal social media account, representing my own personal thoughts and opinions, that has fuck all to do with my employer, whether people know I work for them or not, and I find it completely reprehensible that the courts are supporting the growing creep of employer oversight into private lives.

        If you mention your employer affiliation in your public profile, which a lot of these people do to gain exposure, then you’re representing your employer whether you like it or not. If you try to use your celebrity status (however minor) to signal boost your opinions, people will inevitably make the link between you and your work and start lighting torches.

          If my employer is going to try to make claims over my personal time and opinions, they can pay me for that time and give me the same entitlements that I get whilst I'm at work. Otherwise, they have no right to make a claim that I am representing them just because it says somewhere on my profile that I work at "XYZ International".

            Maybe check your employer’s social media policy to see if they have limitations on social media posts where you can be identified as part of your company.

            That said: There’s a big difference between an average employee and somebody who attempts to capitalise on their association or job to boost their social media profile - which is what most of these people do.

              Again, if the social media policy covers my personal account that i use outside of work hours they csn pay me for that time spent "representing the company" and i will hold them liable for the environment in which i apparently work. My time, my account, none of their damn business what i put up there. If i were a contractor creating work for them to buy, i would plug the work i created to make sure i had future contrscts too. Companies are only supposed to have limited control over contract workers. Claiming their social media account as a company representative is a step too far.

                Yeah, it doesn’t work that way, whether you want it to or not... good luck making that argument.

        Following on from that, if Marvel expects their creators to use social media to promote their work and it leads to abuse campaigns, does that represent a hostile work environment?

        Did Marvel do anything to try and take some of the heat off their employee, such as publicly stating that they were happy with the work he did and call out the abuse?

          Except he was fired for going on a massive rant.
          Marvel isnt to blame here.

            He's said he and his co-authors were the subject of ongoing abuse and harassment on social media. Either he is representing them, in which case they are responsible for providing a safe and healthy work environment, including in regards to mental and emotional health, whilst he is representing them, whether on social media or in the real world, or he is not representing them, in which case they have no claim over his time, actions or opinions, and no right to persecute him for such.

              Check his rants before assuming anything. He writes truly vile stuff, in typical American fashion.

              No, Marvel is not responsible for that and you are entirely wrong about the latter points youve been making too.

      Why are you glad to see him gone exactly? What possible effect do his actions have on you?
      Do you have an agenda perhaps?
      Need someone to kick?

    The only videos I could find were ones talking about his tweets attacking people, found one or two saying he was deliberately trying to jam in SJW stuff.

    Not sure this is a Donald Trump thing (and no, I am not a fan).

    People + social media + anonymity = toxic behaviour

    Also, in Wendig's case, maybe a little naivete. Someone oughta legislate that all social media apps have a two minute pause between typing something and being able to post it, preferably during which a big yellow warning comes up that says "You sure about this???".
    A lot less crap would happen as a consequence.

      I disagree, a lot of these people think they are 100% right and blame the mob every time rather than their own personal behaviour.

        you are totally correct, also i have noticed every time this happens the reporting is identical, like reporters have a template ready to fill out in these cases, the only difference is if the subject is female insert "rape threats" either before or after "death threats". Come on Kotaku we all know the rape threats are from a twitter account 3 hrs old called 4ChanForLyf

          Maybe because the people pushing for these firings do it in such a pathetically predictable way that it’s the same thing every time so there’s really no other way to report it?

        Other times, the mob is a real thing, don't you agree? Like when a group of people, the same people, always, target systematically other Kotaku users with downvotes to silence them via automoderation, for example?

          Its the same people on both sides.

          The sane, normal people, like myself... and the lunatics who disagree with me.

          Right? :)

          Or its when posters post opinions others disagree with and blame the mob rather than address their own actions and the people they are defending toxic behavior is the reason why they dont have a job anymore.

    @neo_kaiser your not wrong in the sense that the progressives started this witch hunting peoples employment. In fact they are actually worse since they try and get people fired for literally wearing a shirt with scantily clad ladies on it or being a trump supporter (aka white supremacist apparently).

    But you could consider that thanios does not care who is being fired for social media post but rather nobody should be fired for opinions they share on social media. He is wrong of course people who are representing guild wars for example on verified twitter accounts abusing customers is different than someone on their own private twitter.

    PS this might be a slow response i'm at work typing between calls lol

      The progressives?
      Ummm... both sides do this kind of thing.
      Mock outrage and keyboard warriors are everywhere

        i never said only progressives do it just that they started it, which is an indisputable fact.

        and i agree both "sides" do it but so does everyone spanning the middle ground these days because both sides have normalised this behavior of attacking someones employment for disagreeing with them.

        (PS there are good people on both sides btw in case you think the next straw man to throw at me is i'm on the "other" side and just hate progressives i don't so give that one up)

        Both sides of politics are as bad as each other nowadays. Authors like this guy are not partisan, and are far too quick to project their beliefs and paint those with differing views to their own as being somehow worse.

        Thats fine, but not when they are in control of an IP as valuable as Star Wars. Though I'd wouldn't be surprised if it's been declining in value rapidly since TLJ.

          The narrative that TLJ hurt the brand, the creators or Disney is a hopeful fairytale that some people tell themselves to assist the belief that progressivity in the entertainment industry is a blip that they can flatten by bullying, harassing and boycotting. Any serious look at real numbers and statistics will quickly dispel such fantasies. The SW brand is as strong as ever if not stronger. It is true that they have succeeded in targeting specific creators, but they are really not seeing the trend or the big picture.

            The SJW brand? Good lord.

            Anyway... it wasn't the progressive messages which they shoehorned in which bothered me. I just thought it was a terrible, terrible film.

            Laura Dern (who I think is great) going space kamikaze? Admiral Ackbars pathetic send off? Finn off on some pointless adventure? Luke being useless? Forced and terrible humour (ie Chewy with the birds / Luke with the milk)? The whole casino scene being a plot hole? Snokes irrelevance? The kung-fu fightin' emperors guard? Adam Drivers whiney Kylo?

            People are tired of being told that disliking TLJ makes them some kind of nazi. It builds resentment.

            TLJ poisoned the well for a lot of people. I'm over the franchise personally.. didn't bother to see Solo, which would have seemed crazy just a few years ago.

              /SW/ brand. As in Star Wars :)

              Anyway, it's perfectly fine to dislike TLJ for whatever reason. You're well within your rights. I won't call you a Nazi for it, or anything of the sort. The issue doesn't lie on disliking stuff but on the kind of fuss people who indeed have an agenda make over it, including harassment, death threats, etc. As of late bigots have perfected a method of co-opting genuine displeasure or disagreement people have over small matters to use them as platforms to attack other people.

            Toy sales WAY down.
            Solo attendances down because of TJL.
            Alot of movies that have been planned are on thin ice.
            Head of Disney taking over responsibilities from Head of Lucasfilm.

            The SW brand is WAY down from 2 years ago. Its not stronger than ever.
            But hey, never let the truth get in the way of the agenda youre pushing.
            And for the record, i didnt hate TLJ because of the 'diversity', i hated it because it was poorly written, characters motivations/choices were backwards and its a horrible Star wars film. which the post above mine says it all.
            But once again, im sure you will still believe its because you find it hard to believe that people dont like things for any other reason that the one you have for everyone who downvotes you.

              Couldn't it be that the Solo movie didn't have great attendance because as the second spin-off of the series in as many years, some fatigue was setting down? Maybe because the movie in and out of itself was not super great? And yeah, I imagine that some people who disliked TLJ also skipped the movie (and let us not forget those who REALLY disliked it and actively campaigned for a boycott). There are several factors (which are also factors in similar "non-essential" franchise movies that may now be being reconsidered), but you only choose the one that conforms to your narrative without any more evidence that it is plausible. Same for other facts that you mention and are happy to play connect-the-dots with.

              I really don't know why both you and the above poster (please do check my response to him) felt the need to defensively state your reasons for disliking the movie. Nowhere did I imply that one could only dislike the movie if one is against the progressive messages. On the other hand, I seriously hope you're not going to try to deny the fact that lots of people with an agenda did jump in the bandwagon and fueled it to maximum speed. Tons of really bad movies are made every year, so I ask you, how come they don't provoke the howling rage, the death threats, the harassment campaigns in social media? How isn't that a clue that there is something in there beyond the mere dislike for a "poorly written" movie?

                Because people who are fanatical about star wars are incredibly fanatical and would rather blame actors who have no say in what comes on the screen rather than the writer/director who doesnt really give a toss about the fans in the first place.
                As far as me " only choose the one that conforms to your narrative". Pretty much ALL the evidence confirms that Star Wars is not as strong or stronger than its standing was in the past few years let alone at its peak, just look at the money it made compared to 7. So cant help you there buddy. But you want to ignore that, go nuts.
                As far as "On the other hand, I seriously hope you're not going to try to deny the fact that lots of people with an agenda did jump in the bandwagon and fueled it to maximum speed"
                The best way to put my standpoint on that is, there is alot of scum in the world who hate more than love, These 'People' will co-op any reason they can to drive their agenda forward.
                In saying that, just because their agenda is clear to see, doesnt mean everyone who thinks TJL sucks shares their agenda. And just because you are against that Agenda doesnt mean you are suddenly right about the SW brand being as strong as ever, especially when the head of disney has taken over responsibilities of the franchise going forward(Something he has not done with Marvel in comparison) because you want a win against that shitty agenda.
                Sometimes we lose against shitty agendas. And these days, weaponised mobs have more victories than defeats. But hey, considering people dont know care about context when vilifying one person (James Gunn) or Defending another (Chuck Wendig & Jessica Price) im not surprised in the slightest that the mobs have such a good track record recently.
                As far as "How isn't that a clue that there is something in there beyond the mere dislike for a "poorly written" movie?"
                Maybe thats why i "felt the need to defensively state your reasons for disliking the movie."
                Because your own Personal Agenda was showing, especially after you claiming people downvote you to silence you or your opinion. I mean, youre not exactly subtle there.

                  See, we're actually much in agreement. We both know that there are horrible people co-opting the disappointment of many fans over TLJ into an outrage that sent masses spiraling into harassment and abuse. I've never implied that because such people are wrong, then the movie, by logic must be great and right. As I've said in many occasions now, it's entirely fine to dislike the movie for whatever reasons concerning your own sensibilities.

                  I think the best we can do in regards to reaching mutual understanding is separating the fact that the TLJ was disappointing for many fans from the fact that bigots seized the opportunity given by the backlash to attack people and try to send a message. By doing so, you can understand that when I'm condemning the harassers, I'm not, by association, condemning everybody who disliked the movie and similarly I can also understand your position better.

    Get woke, go broke strikes again.

      yeh i feel that slogan is overused but seems to fit in this case.

      that being said anyone who loses their shit just because someone put some minorities in some movie comic whatever is an idiot, that being said any creator who starts trying to jam this shit down peoples throats, needs and deserves a backlash because inherent in that process of jamming is the implication that your a bigot who needs to learn.

      Right? Da fk is sexuality doing in Star Wars? Who are these people writing for?

        Were you ok with the borderline incest in the original trilogy? Seems like that’s much more questionable than including a gay character...

          No problem with gay characters. Just a persoal taste thing... I wan't SW to be about light sabers and space battles. Don't really see where sexuality comes into it. But whatever... If it was in there and done well, then perhaps I'm wrong.

          But here's a sample of what this guy wrote on twitter recently:

          ...In the wake of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, Chuck wrote that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) could “eat a boot covered in sh*t” and that “Winter is coming” for Republicans. He also called them “callous f*cknecks,” “prolapsed a$$holes,” and “vengeful petty horrors.”

          He wen't further than this. But perhaps you're starting to see why he doesn't belong in control of even a small fraction of this multi-billion dollar franchise.

            Your last comment mentioned solely and specifically the inclusion of sexuality, that’s what my comment was addressing. Romance (and by extension, sexuality because the two are intrinsically linked) has always been part of the Star Wars franchise. Though it has almost exclusively been heterosexual romance. But to say that it should just be all space battles and lightsabers is to miss so much of the context of the franchise. The fall of Anakin rise of Vader was so much about young love and, yes, sexuality.

            As for his politics, why should that stuff make him unfit for the job? It doesn’t sound like he was trying to shoehorn his politics into his writing (and before you say it, writing in one gay character does not qualify as cramming politics down readers throats).

              Fair enough.

              However I still think his twitter account was vile.
              You just can't attack half of the US like that when you're attached to such a valuable IP. They're a corporation trying to fill cinema seats and sell comics.

              There's a big difference between artists who own their IP like Taylor Swift and J K Rowling saying what they want on Twitter compared to this guy.

        Gay people? People who like gay people/relationships? People who literally don't give a damn about the sexuality of fictional characters as long as their interactions are believable and their adventures exciting? There's a lot of people things like these are written for. Obviously, you are not one of them, but that's fine. Tons and tons and tons of things are written with your sensibilities in mind. It's entirely fine to enjoy those and allow those who enjoy other things do so as well.

    Stop using Twitter! It's a shithole!
    If Chuck didn't use twitter, he'd still be employed!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now