Comic Books | Disney | Film and TV | News

'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Director Deletes Homophobic Blog Posts

JamesGunnMarvel and parent company Disney are taking a gamble with a big screen version of Guardians of the Galaxy, a comic title with a smaller fan base than other marquee teams like The Avengers and X-Men.

The project will be expensive and the publicity will be immense. A flop would be egg on the faces of Marvel's otherwise successful movie team. Everything has to be as perfect as possible. Unfortunately, things are off to an inauspicious start, thanks to writer and director James Gunn's past remarks about gay people and women.

The Hollywood Reporter reports that Gunn came under fire for a 2011 story posted on his blog called "50 Superheroes You Most Want to Have Sex With: 2nd Annual Poll Results," in which he used homophobic and misogynistic language.

From THR:

Gunn targets several of the male superheroes on the list with homophobic language and slurs, calling No. 5, X-Men's Gambit, a "Cajun fruit," before graphically describing a sex act he would perform on the character to satisfy a girlfriend's fantasy -- but the thought "makes me sick to my stomach.

He says he hopes for a Marvel-DC crossover so that Tony Stark "can 'turn' " lesbian character Batwoman straight, then says she "could also have sex with Nightwing and probably still be technically considered a lesbian."

Gunn has removed that post and another offensive missive, as well as another, but the power of the internet keeps them alive and well and will no doubt complicate his Guardians endeavors.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Not good enough just deleting it, you should have known memories are long and you just insured 50 percent of Marvel's fans will make this a flop. Thanks for killing your career as well.

    Posted by: DC Arnold | Nov 29, 2012 7:47:12 AM

  2. Wait, that guy is straight? I never would have guessed that.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 29, 2012 7:53:23 AM

  3. Oh please, I've read worse on the back of a gay porn sleeve.

    Posted by: yuninv | Nov 29, 2012 8:44:08 AM

  4. @Paul R. - I agree! Closet case.

    Posted by: Lifesart | Nov 29, 2012 9:00:13 AM

  5. Ugh - not offensive. some people are so uppity about the littlest thing, we're worse than whiny blacks sometimes.

    Posted by: Rick | Nov 29, 2012 9:22:07 AM

  6. Some people are so uppity about the littlest thing, we're worse than a misogynistic insecure closet case with obvious daddy issues that has nothing better to do than troll the only outlet for his pent up homosexuality.

    Posted by: Jason R. | Nov 29, 2012 9:38:59 AM

  7. Wow *THAT'S* supposed to be homophobic and misogynist?! PUH-LEAZE! He was just being colorful and attempting humor. He even said he'd hook up with a male! That's homophobic? Why because he said it would make him sick? Having sex with a woman would make me sick, BFD. People need to pick their battles. This guy is not an enemy.

    Posted by: andy | Nov 29, 2012 9:48:05 AM

  8. @Rick, I don't think being a racist troll is going to resolve this question?

    Frankly anyone who talks about this much about having sex with their significant other is insecure.

    Posted by: Karl | Nov 29, 2012 9:48:13 AM

  9. Thinking of going down on a girl makes me sick to my stomach too. It does not mean I am a heterophobe.

    Posted by: Decidocisum | Nov 29, 2012 9:49:03 AM

  10. Not guilty! And the Nightwing comment is kind of funny.

    Posted by: Zell | Nov 29, 2012 10:12:03 AM

  11. Meh. I read both Gunn's lists and the only people who'd get really upset by it are The Terminally Offended, those who are ALWAYS offended by something. It seems to be their purpose in life.

    I haven't read comics since the late 80s and the thing that surprised me most is how sexualized the drawings are, mostly of the women but also some men. The examples Gunn used seemed to be posters (as opposed to actual panels from comics) but the characters are in porn star poses, wearing nearly non-existent costumes and 'f*ck me' expressions. They're obviously meant to be seen as sexual fantasies so why get upset when someone says the obvious, "Oh yeah, I'd hit that"?

    Posted by: Caliban | Nov 29, 2012 10:15:42 AM

  12. No. Stop. Delete this post. Punch yourself with moderate force.

    NOTHING shall derail a Guardians of the Galaxy movie.

    I finally understand GOProud, I now have something more important to me that equality.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Nov 29, 2012 10:45:13 AM

  13. I just read the list and thought it was funny. I saw no reason for this manufactured outrage. Here's the google cache link:

    Posted by: Iko | Nov 29, 2012 10:50:59 AM

  14. I don't like the jokes at all, and the fact Gunn deleted them says enough and the offensiveness of what he said, but I will say that these comments were made two years ago and there was no outrage then. The outrage shouldn't begin now for something Gunn did before, and then cleaned up. The guy is also basically an insult comic if you look through his website and twitter.

    The way I see it: Have him address what he said, why he said it, and make sure he never says anything like this going forward.

    Posted by: Francis | Nov 29, 2012 10:58:54 AM

  15. Yeah u don't get it. The posts weren't homophobic- he'd said he'd have sex with a guy, even tho it would make him sick. So???? Va-jay jays make me nauseous-

    Really- I'm disappointed in this post. There are much bigger thins to worry about in the world, and this guy def isn't one of them. He may or may not be an ally, but he isn't a homophobe

    Posted by: Scott | Nov 29, 2012 11:27:19 AM

  16. Just watched an interview with him on AOTS, in which he said he's a gay man in every way except that he likes to have sex with women. I think he just likes to be outrageous. No story here. Move along.

    Posted by: milou | Nov 29, 2012 11:38:10 AM

  17. Scott, They make you nauseated. Nauseous is the quality of something that makes you nauseated. IE: That nauseous puddle of vomit is making me nauseated.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Nov 29, 2012 12:27:26 PM

  18. @Fenrox Scott's use was actually correct--you're the one who is misinformed. From Merriam-Webster:

    1 : causing nausea or disgust : nauseating
    2 : affected with nausea or disgust

    Even the OED agrees that Scott's use is correct.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 29, 2012 12:54:29 PM

  19. @Chris, It's debatable (From American Heritage dictionary):

    Traditional critics have insisted that nauseous is appropriately used only to mean "causing nausea" and that it is incorrect to use it to mean "affected with nausea," as in Roller coasters make me nauseous. In this example, nauseated is preferred by 72 percent of the Usage Panel. What is curious, however, is that 88 percent of the Panelists indicated that they would prefer nauseating in the sentence The children looked a little green from too many candy apples and nauseous rides. Thus it appears that like a handful of other words such as transpire, nauseous is actively used mainly in the sense in which it is considered incorrect.

    While the use of nauseous to mean "affected with nausea" may incur critical displeasure, it should be pointed out in its defense not only that it is quite common among educated speakers but that it is subtly distinct from nauseated in this sense. Nauseated is a passive participle, and hence suggests a condition induced by a specific external cause. By contrast, nauseous is an adjective that refers to an occurrent state whose cause may be nonspecific or unknown. The person to reports that I woke up this morning feeling nauseous might not be willing to accept that he or she had been nauseated by any external agent.

    So, not wrong, unfortunately Scott isn't wrong either after all. Effing english.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Nov 29, 2012 1:28:36 PM

  20. I agree. Delete this post.

    Posted by: daniel | Nov 29, 2012 1:31:10 PM

  21. Sorry but jokes about men having sex with lesbians to turn them straight are not funny. If this guy does not understand that, then he is truly clueless.

    Posted by: shawnthesheep | Nov 29, 2012 1:57:42 PM

  22. @Fenrox If you're going to be a pedant about grammar on the Internet, it would be a good idea to make sure you're correct before doing so. And it's not debatable, it's that the definitions preferred in 18th century English do not always hold preferred status over time. Once the Oxford English Dictionary has decided a usage is proper, it's basically game over.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 29, 2012 2:16:21 PM

  23. @Chris, Nah.

    Posted by: Fenrox | Nov 29, 2012 3:44:59 PM

  24. I see the roaches have come out to feed and $hit.

    Posted by: Marc C | Nov 29, 2012 3:45:22 PM

  25. @Fenrox Yup.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 29, 2012 7:01:18 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Towleroad Talking Points: An Old Lady's T*ts« «