• Zozano@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I personally think it was the wrong call to drop Roiland before his court case for domestic abuse was reviewed - innocent until proven guilty.

      Remember how at the start of the Depp/Heard trial everyone labeled Depp a monster? Then in court, Heard revealed herself to be a liar.

      However, the texts he sent to minors were disqualifying in their own right. As a form of risk mitigation, you can’t continue to employ the star of a show teens love, texting underage girls about how they should hurry up and turn eighteen.

      • NuPNuA@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s most egregious is that Adult Swim are owned by WB and look how many chances they gave Ezra Miller and he still got to be The Flash. Roiland had one set of dropped charges and he got sacked.

      • aaron_griffin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Eh, “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal doctrine, not a business one. Sadly, popular tv shows are big business and negative publicity ruins that business, so the business overlords have to make a choice to soak the damage or mitigate it

      • Smoogy@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Roiland DV case is very different from the depp/heard defamation case.

        1: the Roiland case was about whether or not he was found to be committing DV. and it was inconclusive evidence. He might not be found guilty but he’s also not found innocent.

        2: His accuser was not to be found guilty of perjury. the case was about finding evidence of DV. Not perjury of his accuser. the depp/heard case was explicitly about what heard gave to the media is what she was found guilty of.

        3: Roiland and his accuser didn’t sign a non-disparagement claus. and his accuser didn’t then go talk to Washington post without any conclusive evidence on the outcome of the case. And probably a good thing roiland didn’t sign such a non-disparagement claus as he did post misinformation meant to publicly harm his accuser with that misleading Twitter post about what his case was actually about.

  • QHC@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The number of people in this post that don’t understand the difference between a private company’s HR/PR decisions and the actual legal system is shocking.

    • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No one said they couldn’t fire roiland because it violates laws. They said he shouldn’t have been fired because of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. That’s separate from the law.

      But the text messages to minors should be enough for anyone to want him fired.

      • QHC@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What are you talking about? “Innocent until proven guilty” is only relevant from the perspective of the law.

    • Smoogy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is why you don’t short yourself on voice actors and make only one do them all. Hinging your entire success off of one and only one person brings and creates it’s own risks.

        • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          He explicitly said risks. If Seth MacFarlane could no longer be used as a voice actor for whatever reason, Family Guy would have been in very big trouble.

          Why does the concept of risk need to be explained?

      • Revan343@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It shouldn’t be a problem, there are some really good Justin Roiland soundalikes, and it’s not like Rick’s voice hasn’t changed over the course of the show anyways.

        The harder part will be finding someone with the right comedic timing. That’s Roiland’s bigger contribution to the show

  • Wooly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Had completely forgotten about this and was wondering why it had been so long since I’d seen new R&M. This explains a lot.

  • jellymelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Absolutely pointless trying to keep the show going at this point. Just make something new, I’ve got enough confidence in Harmon and the rest of the writing team that I feel like they’d be able to create something great regardless of Roiland being a part of it.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It has been pretty clear that Harmon is the creative talent behind the show and Roiland had made himself replaceable. Harmon probably feels he can continue the show, so why not?