Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"

[Jayson1]

It isn't about what is right and wrong in society, they make their decisions based on how they think they will impact the bottom line. They have no obligation to keep Gunn on, nor did they have an obligation to fire him.

I know but to be honest I don't care about their bottom line to a point where it means giving away people's protections from abuse. They have already basically justified other unethical things like sweatshops,destroying the unions cheating their customers and the list never ends. I don't much like giving them final say over free speech as well. I feel like we are living in Oligarchy and it gets worst ever year.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

I'd say the biggest difference between Trump and Gunn is that Trump has continued this kind of behavior pretty much continuously since those tapes were recorded, while Gunn has since apologized and stopped that behavior. Not to mention the fact that Trump has an extensive history of bad behavior in person, while as far as I know Gunn's stuff has been pretty just bad jokes on Twitter.
I think for me that's the biggest point in Gunn's favor, since those posts, he has apologized and stopped the behavior. If had just continued to post nasty stuff constantly since the posts that got him fired, I would have been all for firing him.

I agree. It isn't just about what is said but who says it. The perception is Gunn is most likely a decent person with a edgy sense of humor or who had a edgy sense of humor. Trump on the other hand oozes racism and sexism and just about any other terrible thing one can think of. Granted we actually don't know either person but people still go with their gut feelings most of the time I think when judging a person. Not to mention the levels. Trump can't open his mouth without saying something horrible. Gunn is not known for going around acting like a asshole to people. Even if he is flawed it's small in compared to some of the really,really terrible people out their in the world.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't necessarily disagree with any of this, but I'm not sure it applies when the incident in question 1) happened *before* said company hired him 2) was know to said company because 3) he had publicly addressed this all *years* prior.

Let's not pretend this is Disney being morally upstanding. It's a hit-job, plain and simple. Whether or not it was deserved in the first place is a whole other debate.
Also, more than a little hypocritical on the Mouse's part given it's far from spotless record of portraying certain minority groups in deeply offensive ways...

For the most part I agree with your points. However, not the final one. No one who is in any real authority was around for those things, like Song of the South. I doubt you are suggesting that current employees should be held responsible for the sins of past employees, are you?

 

[Reverend]

Disney's decision in this situation is perfectly understandable. Even with them having known all of this before they hired him, it is still understandable to not want him to continue to be associated with the Marvel brand.

Comprehension of their actions isn't in question. It's the capriciousness and hypocrisy that's bothering me. Also, as a rule of thumb anything that makes the white supremacists cheer is not something I'm inclined to be happy about on general principle.

For the most part I agree with your points. However, not the final one. No one who is in any real authority was around for those things, like Song of the South. I doubt you are suggesting that current employees should be held responsible for the sins of past employees, are you?

So you're saying a company, or indeed any legal entity is automatically absolved of all responsibility or moral obligation to make amends for anything it does, just as soon the actual people who happened to be there at the time are out of the picture?
Or is it just that it happened so long ago that it no longer reflects their current outlook? Hmm...that sounds familiar....

 

[Professor Zoom]

Comprehension of their actions isn't in question. It's the capriciousness and hypocrisy that's bothering me. Also, as a rule of thumb anything that makes the white supremacists cheer is not something I'm inclined to be happy about on general principle.


So you're saying a company, or indeed any legal entity is automatically absolved of all responsibility or moral obligation to make amends for anything it does, just as soon the actual people who happened to be there at the time are out of the picture? Noted.

Uh. No. Where on earth did I say that? I’m saying the sins of others shouldn’t be placed on the new people. Should the sins of the father be placed on the son?

Song of the South will never see the light of day, officially, by Disney. That was a decision made by new people. That was taking care of their moral obligation. In fact, one could argue that firing Gunn is a continuation of that moral obligation for the sins of the past.

In other words: they aren’t being hypocritical.

 

[Kor]

I wonder what kind of clauses in Gunn's contract with Disney allowed for this termination. Of course, CA is an "at will employment" state, so they really don't even have to have a real reason to let him go.

Kor

 

[Terok Nor]

It seems we're at a point where apologising and turning your life around as a way of redemption isn't enough for some people anymore.

If there's no forgiveness then why would anyone want to stop doing bad things? It's a slippery slope.

Gunn said some vile things 6 years ago and hasn't tweeted anything like that since. If Disney didn't reject him as a director back then then they really have no business being self righteous about it now.

I hope Gunn gets rehired, takes the money and tells Disney to go fuck themselves.

 

[BillJ]

I don't much like giving them final say over free speech as well.

Which they don't have. Gunn/others are free to say/tweet/text anything they want. Disney is free to decide whether or not they reflect well on the company and hire/fire on that basis.

The 1st Amendment only protects people from government retaliation for what they say.

Welcome to life.

 

[UssGlenn]

Song of the South will never see the light of day, officially, by Disney. That was a decision made by new people. That was taking care of their moral obligation.

So this is off topic, but does anybody else think Song of the South's reputation may have gotten a bit out of hand over the years? No one talking about it today has seen it in 30 years. I never got to see more than the animated segments back when I was little, never saw the live action parts. I read a posting a while back by someone who managed to get their hands on a pirated copy, and it sounded like the actual movie doesn't live up to the hype.

 

[Jayson1]

I actually wonder if they will ever be able to hire any good directors anymore at some point. Between this and Edgar Wright and Whedon they don't seem to have a very good track record of respecting or protecting it's talent. Like "Star Wars" they have totally bought into the idea that talent doesn't matter as much as it's Brand name.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

Which they don't have. Gunn/others are free to say/tweet/text anything they want. Disney is free to decide whether or not they reflect well on the company and hire/fire on that basis.

The 1st Amendment only protects people from government retaliation for what they say.

Welcome to life.

I'm pretty sure people didn't have the internet in mind when they conceived this. People do have the right to feel like their should be some seperation from their private life and their work life. Nobody expects their bosses to get involved in their marriage plans or to tell them what type of shows are okay to watch but people are fine with allowing them to monitor their speech? Should they be allowed to fire someone because their are pregeant and not married because they want to represent "family values?" It's to much intrusion.
I know one can say the internet isn't private but I don't think we really grasp what the internet is or should be. I know it's much different now than it was in the early days before big business moved in and started using it as yet another means to make money. Back then the internet was basically the wild west. A place that had no rules and it sort of represented, true freedom. That idea still exists in many people's heads. People are real but the enviroment is fake. People might not be what they say they are. No consquences online or in real life because in the end what happened in the internet really didn't matter that much to people.

Jason

 

[Noname Given]

Complete overreaction over some jokes. They weren't good jokes but come one, it's not like that stuff is off limits, see Family Guy.

Yeah, no. I get that it's 6 - 10 years ago; but a company like Disney (who after the whole 'Rosanne racist tweets' has effectively made a company policy - a policy that I agree with BTW); can't suddenly say:

"Oh well, it was years ago; and the guy has made us millions so he gets a pass..."

Once they were publicly made aware of it, they had to take action; and had it been different than what they did for Rosanne Barr; their company image would suffer (IE: They'd look like hypocrites.)

I also don't think public calls for him to be re-instated will have much traction with them either, but who know

I do feel this will be a loss for GotG III and any future GotG appearances in MCU films. That said, the only person to blame for this whole thing is James Gunn himself (and he appears to fully accept the responsibility for his actions, so that puts him in a class way above Ms. Barr; who anytime she talks about her situation first accepts, but then always now follows with: "But it's not what I meant...I'm not like that..." ).

Welcome to the 21st century. If you want to be unfiltered to the extreme, don't do it on social media/the internet, which will be archived and follow you around for the rest of your life.

'Freedom of Speech' means the government can't/won't jail/legally prosecute you for what you say (unless what you say is one of the few things listed as 'criminal', like outright 'Hate Speech', or yelling 'Fire' in a crowded public space when there is no fire.) It doesn't mean private citizens and businesses/employers can't have a policy regarding certain types of speech and take actions such as termination of employment when such policies are violated, and the business/employer is publicly made aware of it.

 

[BillJ]

I'm pretty sure people didn't have the internet in mind when they conceived this. People do have the right to feel like their should be some seperation from their private life and their work life. Nobody expects their bosses to get involved in their marriage plans or to tell them what type of shows are okay to watch but people are fine with allowing them to monitor their speech? Should they be allowed to fire someone because their are pregeant and not married because they want to represent "family values?" It's to much intrusion.
I know one can say the internet isn't private but I don't think we really grasp what the internet is or should be. I know it's much different now than it was in the early days before big business moved in and started using it as yet another means to make money. Back then the internet was basically the wild west. A place that had no rules and it sort of represented, true freedom. That idea still exists in many people's heads. People are real but the enviroment is fake. People might not be what they say they are. No consquences online or in real life because in the end what happened in the internet really didn't matter that much to people.

Jason

If you show your figurative ass in public either real or digital, don't be surprised if there is fallout.

 

[Tom Hendricks]

If you show your figurative ass in public either real or digital, don't be surprised if there is fallout.

So @Squiggy should be concern about this?

 

[Jayson1]

If you show your figurative ass in public either real or digital, don't be surprised if there is fallout.

But that is something that can be applied to literally anyone. Everyone has made mistakes or even had moments were they are the asshole in a situation because of anger or stupidity. Then you get to things that are more subjective and what is more subjective humor? You know you can hold people to such unrealistic standards to a point where nobody can ever possibly live up to them and then you put them in a past setting where times were different and frankly 6 to 8 years ago might not seem far away but it was still a very different time from today. We had no president Trump. Obama was president so things didn't seem nearly as dire as they do today where it feels like society is on the edge of collapse and everyone is so afraid and angry which in turn creates over-reactions like this. Which to me feels like something that only keeps it going more than stops because soon someone else will go down for some stupid thing they did before the rules changed and we will be right back here.

Jason

 

[Kor]

So this is off topic, but does anybody else think Song of the South's reputation may have gotten a bit out of hand over the years? No one talking about it today has seen it in 30 years. I never got to see more than the animated segments back when I was little, never saw the live action parts. I read a posting a while back by someone who managed to get their hands on a pirated copy, and it sounded like the actual movie doesn't live up to the hype.

It would be problematic to make the movie available as entertainment to kids, due to the buffoon/simpleton stereotypes and cliches. At the same time, taking it completely out of circulation removes opportunities for critical historical analysis and understanding, and sweeps the past under the rug.

What if the movie was given the same treatment as the "Walt Disney Treasures" DVD collections? These were aimed at adult collectors for historical reference, and included cartoons that are now understood as being racist and offensive. And every step of the way, Leonard Maltin was there offering commentary on how such depictions are antiquated and that it isn't okay to be entertained by them.

Kor

 

[Jax]

I see the factions behind this are now going after Trevor Noah now but I doubt Comedy Central will give in to any PR backlash because this is the network that has run South Park for over 20 years.

 

[UssGlenn]

'Freedom of Speech' means the government can't/won't jail/legally prosecute you for what you say (unless what you say is one of the few things listed as 'criminal', like outright 'Hate Speech', or yelling 'Fire' in a crowded public space when there is no fire.) It doesn't mean private citizens and businesses/employers can't have a policy regarding certain types of speech and take actions such as termination of employment when such policies are violated, and the business/employer is publicly made aware of it.

Close, but your terminology is off. The First Amendment means the government won't prosecute you for what you say. Freedom of Speech is a independent principal that is protected by the First Amendment. It's something that private citizens and businesses should strive to uphold themselves even if they technically don't have to in the eyes of the law. This issue of confusing these inalienable rights with those granted by the government was one of the arguments against writing them down in the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

[BillJ]

Which to me feels like something that only keeps it going more than stops because soon someone else will go down for some stupid thing they did before the rules changed and we will be right back here.

Jason

Sucks to be them. Maybe this will be the wake-up call for the next adult who thinks it is cool to do stupid shit on the internet. Companies can hire and fire people based on their stupidity on social media.

I'm sorry, I feel no pity for Gunn. This wasn't some kid on his first job, he was 43 years old. My kids know better than to post that kind of stuff.

 

[Jayson1]

I see the factions behind this are now going after Trevor Noah now but I doubt Comedy Central will give in to any PR backlash because this is the network that has run South Park for over 20 years.

Unless they choose to cancel "South Park" which I am guessing is just a matter of time. These companies aren't just abusing freedom of speech but they are being cowards and running away from any conflict just so they will look good to the people they feel the need to look good to. That was something that pissed me off about the NFL. Trump bullied them and let him walk all over them. The asshole racist actually won.

Jason