Roiland, whose exit from the Adult Swim series was announced in January in light of domestic abuse charges, had voiced the title characters since its 2013 launch.
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.
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
I believe he actually wanted to leave. He’s a Co creator and will still win money from Rick and Morty. But not if people stop watching as protest or something like that. And at this point it’s all 100% an image issue and it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty or not. He knows his image is already fkd. Most of his “friends” and coworkers cut relations with him to protect themselves.
This is just speculation, but I assumed as a matter of respect, the R&M team would have given him a choice to step down or not. I don’t see a situation where keeping him on would be worth the hassle.
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.
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.
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
I believe he actually wanted to leave. He’s a Co creator and will still win money from Rick and Morty. But not if people stop watching as protest or something like that. And at this point it’s all 100% an image issue and it doesn’t matter if he’s guilty or not. He knows his image is already fkd. Most of his “friends” and coworkers cut relations with him to protect themselves.
This is just speculation, but I assumed as a matter of respect, the R&M team would have given him a choice to step down or not. I don’t see a situation where keeping him on would be worth the hassle.
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.
deleted by creator