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

[Jayson1]

This isn't a speed bump. It is a black eye for Disney and Gunn.

No Gunn actually being a pedophile would be black eye. Gunn is not really all that different from Robert Downey Jr who might be the man most responsible for the entire franchise to begin with. Does "Iron Man" go as well with Gunn because he has actually done time in jail. I think Black Widow movie has to die before it starts because didn't the actress once show support for Woody Allen? Dr Strange I think once said some racist words. Kind of forgot that scandal but I guess it doesn't matter. Just ask him to leave the cape on the way out. Peyton Reed once had a wacky funny pedophile teacher character in "Bring it On." Maybe Edgar Wright will come back. The Russo's worked for Dan Harmon and we know that comes with baggage. Oh well I am sure they can find someone to replace them.

Jason

 

[mos6507]

If you're stopping to ask if they're 'your own' before deciding whether what they did is bad enough to warrant consequences, you're part of the reason why discourse in the modern world is so f#cked. They either crossed a line or they didn't. You can disagree about where the line is, you don't get to say 'well, we can let this one slide because he's one of OURS'.

No Gunn actually being a pedophile would be black eye

The fact is it's not your call. It's Disney's.

 

[Mudd]

The end of Hollywood's "Twitter Era"

You know, for decades studios and talent themselves have paid good money to publicists for the exact purpose of keeping the unvarnished "real them" out of the public eye and away from their adoring fans. They guarded their private lives pretty jealously, and their bosses wanted control over how they were perceived in the press.

Everybody went a little nuts in social media and unlearned a lot of what they'd been taught to do and not to do.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

You know this is a pretty poor excuse for trying to undo someone's career?

In politics? Its common.

But how fragile is Trump that he (or his surrogates) has to go after people that disapprove of the job he does and are openly critical of him?

About as fragile as those who pushed the "Bush did not serve in the Air National Guard" memos, or the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry by both Vietnam veterans and fellow politicians--both incidents occurring during the 2004 presidential campaign. Its common and a part of the mud of politics.

 

[BillJ]

No Gunn actually being a pedophile would be black eye.

What was done was a black eye. For Gunn, for being stupid enough to do those things on social media. For Disney, for either not catching it or turning a blind eye to it.

For the record, you don't really seem to understand my position, at all. I'm neutral on whether or not Gunn should've gotten fired, and find it shitty that his posts came out the way they did. But Disney has the right to decide who they associate with on projects they own or are financing.

The exact same thing could come up tomorrow with another employee and Disney could act in the exact opposite manner, and that would be their right.

 

[Mudd]

Would you spend $250+ million dollars to find out?

That's not where one starts out, of course.

Gunn may or may not have a career directing these prefab studio blockbusters again - honestly, I'm not sure anyone will in another ten years.

 

[Jayson1]

If you're stopping to ask if they're 'your own' before deciding whether what they did is bad enough to warrant consequences, you're part of the reason why discourse in the modern world is so f#cked. They either crossed a line or they didn't. You can disagree about where the line is, you don't get to say 'well, we can let this one slide because he's one of OURS'.

If I felt he crossed a line I wouldn't want to protect him just because he was a liberal. Since I don't think he did then yes I think you stand by him. I know some felt he did which is kind of why were screwed. Not that people disagree but that disagreement is a successful way at defeating us. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. They basically used the fact that we don't walk in lockstep as a weakness and since nobody is ever going to budge it means things are going to get worst.

Jason

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

He asked for it just because he criticised Trump? Wouldn't Trump be asking for the same people calling him out with his behavior?

Oh, Trump is experiencing his own issues with the past catching up to him. He can't go a full 24 hours without he--or someone from his circle--dropping potentially disastrous bombs in front of him.

 

[Jayson1]

What was done was a black eye. For Gunn, for being stupid enough to do those things on social media. For Disney, for either not catching it or turning a blind eye to it.

For the record, you don't really seem to understand my position, at all. I'm neutral on whether or not Gunn should've gotten fired, and find it shitty that his posts came out the way they did. But Disney has the right to decide who they associate with on projects they own or are financing.

The exact same thing could come up tomorrow with another employee and Disney could act in the exact opposite manner, and that would be their right.

I think I understand. You feel Disney was within legal rights to do what they did. I sort of agree that might be the case from a legal perspective though I am curious about how this stuff flies with the workers union. It seems like if it is legal then the Worker's Union has failed to do it's job very well.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

What I am wondering is where this is all heading. Usually language changes over time and things that used to be acceptable become seen as racist or sexist. I've always wondering though if their is a breaking point where people simply feel like they can't say anything because at times it really does feel like anything you say will offend. I'm not sure you can maintain that kind of feeling before people just want to revolt. I've wondered if this has been a big influence on the rise of the Alt-Right. In the past I think people had a better grasp on what words were wrong but as the list grows so does the feeling of censorship and a loss of freedom. I've also wondered if it has been to fast in a shorter period of time. How long did it take for the N word and C word fore example to really sink into culture were it was seen by most as bad words? Is it possible for change to happen to fast especially when it seems like everything is changing at once. Plus how does the number of mix signals impact society. On one hand things feel super PC I guess is the best word to use yet at the same time you got Trump in office and Nazi's becoming part of the culture. It's like the country has somehow become more liberal and more right-wing at the same time. How in the world does that happen? Do moderates even exist anymore or have any influence on anything?

Jason

The thing is, things were sexist and racist in the past. They were just considered acceptable.

They are no longer considered acceptable.

 

[BillJ]

I think I understand. You feel Disney was within legal rights to do what they did. I sort of agree that might be the case from a legal perspective though I am curious about how this stuff flies with the workers union. It seems like if it is legal then the Worker's Union has failed to do it's job very well.

Jason

I'm pretty sure James Gunn could have challenged his firing from Disney through the Director's Guild of America. Doing so likely would've turned out badly for him because, A) there are likely morals clauses which protects Disney in this situation and B) his career would pretty much be over, even if he somehow won.

 

[Jayson1]

I'm pretty sure James Gunn could have challenged his firing from Disney through the Director's Guild of America. Doing so likely would've turned out badly for him because, A) there are likely morals clauses which protects Disney in this situation and B) his career would pretty much be over, even if he somehow won.

That I could see as something that happened. Not sure though why his career would be over. Wouldn't it just be over at Disney?

Jason

 

[Grendelsbayne]

In politics? Its common.



About as fragile as those who pushed the "Bush did not serve in the Air National Guard" memos, or the "Swift Boat" attacks on John Kerry by both Vietnam veterans and fellow politicians--both incidents occurring during the 2004 presidential campaign. Its common and a part of the mud of politics.

It's not unheard of, no, but I'm not sure I'd agree it's common to use these kinds of tactics on non-politicians just because they publicly criticized someone. The most comparable case I can remember off the top of my head was when the Dixie Chicks attacked Bush on stage in Europe, but while they got lots of flack for their actions and plenty of shade thrown at them for their work, I don't remember anyone trying to dig old skeletons of theirs into the news.

 

[BillJ]

Wouldn't it just be over at Disney?

Sometimes challenging your contract can have a negative effect on your career.

 

[Jayson1]

The thing is, things were sexist and racist in the past. They were just considered acceptable.

They are no longer considered acceptable.

Yes but people can't change the past so at some point you got to look deeper and ask. Was this person trying to be sexist or was he just trying to do edgy comedy?. I mean shouldn't it all come down to one question. DO you think he is a good person, today? If the answer is yes then what is the issue. If no crime has been broken then why do we want to punish him for something he can't fix and regrets. This is when human compassion is suppose to break in and things like forgivness take over.

Jason

 

[Grendelsbayne]

If I felt he crossed a line I wouldn't want to protect him just because he was a liberal. Since I don't think he did then yes I think you stand by him. I know some felt he did which is kind of why were screwed. Not that people disagree but that disagreement is a successful way at defeating us. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. They basically used the fact that we don't walk in lockstep as a weakness and since nobody is ever going to budge it means things are going to get worst.

Jason

If the problem is that you don't think he crossed a line, then why are you constantly framing it in liberal/conservative terms? If you disagree with where the line is, whether he is a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the conversation.

And if you're just worried about crazy conservatives taking over because they're willing to be hypocrites and we aren't, then Gunn isn't relevant to the conversation. That issue is much bigger and is not going to be solved by just giving up and becoming hypocrites too.

Either way, your insistance on conflating the two conversations is ridiculous.

 

[BillJ]

I mean shouldn't it all come down to one question.

It does come down to exactly one question: will the continued employment of "X" hurt our product?

 

[Jayson1]

If the problem is that you don't think he crossed a line, then why are you constantly framing it in liberal/conservative terms? If you disagree with where the line is, whether he is a liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the conversation.

And if you're just worried about crazy conservatives taking over because they're willing to be hypocrites and we aren't, then Gunn isn't relevant to the conversation. That issue is much bigger and is not going to be solved by just giving up and becoming hypocrites too.

Either way, your insistance on conflating the two conversations is ridiculous.

If their are conservatives who see this issue beyond politcs I apologize for generalizations. One thing we can't deny though is the people who started the whole thing recently were republicans who had politcal motives for their goals.

Jason

 

[Jayson1]

It does come down to exactly one question: will the continued employment of "X" hurt our product?

I was thinking more from a ethical stance. Basically in a world were things were done just because they are right or wrong and not because of any pratical reasons.

Jason

 

[Professor Zoom]

Yes but people can't change the past so at some point you got to look deeper and ask. Was this person trying to be sexist or was he just trying to do edgy comedy?.

Edgy comedy is such a meaningless term. It’s generally a cover for an asshole to be an asshole.

If your jokes are being used to make fun of a marginalized group, you are an asshole. If your edgy comedy is being used to punch down, you are an asshole.

And most likely a racist and a sexist asshole. Even if you don’t “mean it,” using it and propagating it still means you are a racist asshole.

I mean shouldn't it all come down to one question. DO you think he is a good person, today?

If it’s in relation to whether or not Disney has the right to fire him? No. That’s not the question.

If the answer is yes then what is the issue. If no crime has been broken then why do we want to punish him for something he can't fix and regrets.

By your reasoning, Rosanne should be rehired. But, I know you don’t believe that.

This is when human compassion is suppose to break in and things like forgivness take over.

Jason

He can be forgiven. He probably has been forgiven. But, what sort of entitled world do you live in where “I’m sorry” means no consequences.

If you are in a relationship and you’re a jerk and you say sorry, they can’t walk away? “I’m sorry” means never having to face consequences?

“I’m sorry” is a recognition that you fucked up. It’s for others to decide the consequences.