• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unsurprising: From Variety, Disney Unlikely to Rehire ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Director James Gunn (EXCLUSIVE).

Despite a cast letter asking for James Gunn to be reinstated as the director of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” Walt Disney Studios is currently not planning on rehiring the filmmaker who it recently fired after a series of offensive tweets surfaced, according to multiple people familiar with the studio’s current thinking. The feeling within both Disney and Marvel is that the dozens of so-called jokes that Gunn made about pedophilia and rape are unacceptable in the #MeToo era and are not in line with Disney’s family-friendly image.
.
.
.
At this point, the letter does not seem likely to save his job. Gunn’s firing was approved by Disney Studios chief Alan Horn, with his boss, company CEO Bob Iger weighing in on the final decision. The involvement of the highest levels of Disney signals that the cast pressure to rethink the Gunn ouster will struggle to gain internal support. “I don’t see Disney re-hiring him,” says one person close to the matter. “Those tweets were so horrible and Disney has a different standard than other studios.”
.
.
.
As for replacing Gunn, Disney feels no pressure to immediately find a new director, according to sources, and is willing to wait until the right A-list filmmaker comes along. For one, the studio never gave the film an official release date, even though it was widely expected to hit theaters within the next two years. Depending on how long it takes to land the right director, Disney may in fact wind up pushing back the film’s original February 2019 start date.

So far, the studio has yet to meet with any Gunn replacements. There have been rumors that Marvel regulars like Jon Favreau (“Iron Man”), Taika Waititi (“Thor: Ragnarok”), or the Russo brothers (“Avengers: Infinity War”) might be enlisted, but sources say that many of the usual suspects are busy with prior obligations. That means that there is a higher likelihood that Disney will reach outside the Marvel family to find a director with the kind of offbeat sensibility to handle the comic-book franchise.​
 
“...and Disney has a different standard than other studios.”

Bullshit.

Well, they'll be under some kind of pressure to replace this guy soon - dollars to doughnuts they can't afford to hold several of these actors to open-ended obligations for very long, and they're alienated.
 
Does this all mean that a Black Widow movie doesn't happen now as well? I mean she once issued support for Woody Allen who I think we all know is a real pedophile. Does showing support for a real pedophile trump fake jokes about it? I'm sure if everyone looks hard enough their is enough material to bring down the entire MCU.

Jason
 
Bullshit.

Well, they'll be under some kind of pressure to replace this guy soon - dollars to doughnuts they can't afford to hold several of these actors to open-ended obligations for very long, and they're alienated.

Pretty sure everyone in the Guardians cast had a similar contract to what Robert Downey, Jr., had originally (for him, it was three Iron Man films plus The Avengers; for the Guardians, I'd guess that it was three Guardians with options for an Avengers movie, considering at that point there weren't any plans to split Avengers 3 into two parts and it's not difficult to say that both Avengers 3 and 4 are the same project; AMC did similar bullshit with the final season of Breaking Bad).

Just watch them re-hire Whedon and see the movie turn into a shitshow. :lol:
 
Does showing support for a real pedophile

These are rhetorical questions are they not? People are free to boycott a particular actor, director, or studio for whatever reason they like, no matter how petty. They're also not obligated to boycott in any sort of even-handed way. We're not the justice system. We're merely voting with our wallets and therefore our outrage is going to be fickle and inconsistent. This is just how it is.
 
These are rhetorical questions are they not? People are free to boycott a particular actor, director, or studio for whatever reason they like, no matter how petty. They're also not obligated to boycott in any sort of even-handed way. We're not the justice system. We're merely voting with our wallets and therefore our outrage is going to be fickle and inconsistent. This is just how it is.

Technically true but I think we know things don't really work that way. It's like saying Alabama might vote all Democratic in the next election. I think it's actually pretty easy for people who are sinister enough to game the system and do like I have heard it described, weaponize outrage. Actually didn't the alt-right do that to get Trump elected? Getting Gunn fired didn't come from some popular uprising on dark edgy jokes. It was politically motivated and I am betting it won't be the last because it's pretty easy to make anyone into a monster who has any kind of flaw or mistake. Any nuance about not liking how the issue got started but you think he should go or you see it as first amendment issue or whatever view people have doesn't matter. All that matters is the bad guys attacked and scored a political victory and opened the door for similiar attacks. Nuance tends to loose in these kind of situations and often the internet and especially Twitter is were nuance goes to die.

Jason
 
I don't even think Whedon could save Guardians or this new Space Universe they wanted Gunn to be in charge off. I'm afraid it's all over once the next Avengers movie ends. I mean they will figure something out eventually and make good movies from time to time but the MCU and all the extra buzz that comes from that won't be around.

Jason
 
Just to be clear, is there any evidence of Whedon being linked with the project or is this merely all speculation stemming from @Timby's post?
 
Just to be clear, is there any evidence of Whedon being linked with the project or is this merely all speculation stemming from @Timby's post?

It's got to be speculation. I would think? No way he goes back to Marvel after they screwed him over especially since he would be replacing someone else who just got screwed over. I think Kevin Smith would have a better shot at the job than Whedon.

Jason
 
It's got to be speculation. I would think? No way he goes back to Marvel after they screwed him over especially since he would be replacing someone else who just got screwed over. I think Kevin Smith would have a better shot at the job than Whedon.

Jason

To be honest I'm not really a Whedon fan on the best of days, he's never convinced me that he's all that special as a talent and sells himself on feminist ideals which don't entirely ring true. I'd rather see the Russo brothers or Waititi in place to be honest (out of which Waititi would probably be a better fit)
 
I don't even think Whedon could save Guardians or this new Space Universe they wanted Gunn to be in charge off. I'm afraid it's all over once the next Avengers movie ends. I mean they will figure something out eventually and make good movies from time to time but the MCU and all the extra buzz that comes from that won't be around.

Jason

Since when was Gunn solely responsible for the entire MCU'S reputation? From where I'm sitting, there's plenty of reason to believe the MCU will be just fine, even if the Guardians franchise ended now. Which it won't, because Disney isn't stupid. And while there will be people who will dislike what comes next on general principle, Feige's track in choosing great directorial talent strongly suggests that the Guardians franchise itself will probably be fine, too.
 
Does this all mean that a Black Widow movie doesn't happen now as well? I mean she once issued support for Woody Allen who I think we all know is a real pedophile. Does showing support for a real pedophile trump fake jokes about it? I'm sure if everyone looks hard enough their is enough material to bring down the entire MCU.

Jason
Not as long as it isn't mainstream public knowledge or the shitstorm is great enough. This is at the core.. companies like Disney don't give a rat's ass about the personal history of anybody until they fear their reputation will take a public hit or their revenue might be endangered.

So Gunn will stay out and the replacement director will have a very hard time to get that magic from the first film back again. I think the actors are professional enough to fulfill their contracts but it remains to be seen if their hearts will be in it anymore.

Right now i don't expect Guardians 3 to be any real good.
 
To me the 6 biggest strengths of the MCU was
1Feige
2Russo's
3 Gunn
4Downey Jr
5 Chris Evans
6 Black Panther

To me these are basically the meat and potatoes of the MCU and everthing else is kind nice side dishes. Gunn is gone and you assume Downey JR and Evans will be gone after the next Avengers movie. Without those pieces the whole meal starts to not feel quite as filling. I guess the X-Men though could change that and if Spider-Man is around for awhile that would also work. Maybe Captain Marvel but something tells me this is going to be more fun side dish stuff. They really need some strong female leads but does Marvel have anyone with the name recogntion that Wonder Women or Catwoman or Harley Quinn or Batgirl have? Maybe with the X-Men characters but as someone who didn't read the comics my impression of the X-Men is it's all about Wolverine all the time. Well Deadpool as well but to be honest I had no idea who he was until the movies.

Jason
 
To me the 6 biggest strengths of the MCU was
1Feige
2Russo's
3 Gunn
4Downey Jr
5 Chris Evans
6 Black Panther

To me these are basically the meat and potatoes of the MCU and everthing else is kind nice side dishes. Gunn is gone and you assume Downey JR and Evans will be gone after the next Avengers movie. Without those pieces the whole meal starts to not feel quite as filling. I guess the X-Men though could change that and if Spider-Man is around for awhile that would also work. Maybe Captain Marvel but something tells me this is going to be more fun side dish stuff. They really need some strong female leads but does Marvel have anyone with the name recogntion that Wonder Women or Catwoman or Harley Quinn or Batgirl have? Maybe with the X-Men characters but as someone who didn't read the comics my impression of the X-Men is it's all about Wolverine all the time. Well Deadpool as well but to be honest I had no idea who he was until the movies.

Jason

Feige is not going anywhere. The Russos are still available. Black Panther literally just got started.

There is no evidence yet that Downey will actually be gone, either. I personally still expect him to stick around in a much smaller role.

Spider-man is here for at least several more years, as well. Frankly, Venom looks like total shit yet again, so Sony would probably be insane to back out of the marvel deal even after that time period.

I highly doubt that Captain Marvel is going to be 'fun side dish stuff'. She's clearly intended to take a major role in the Avengers - to be a part of the heart of the MCU. They made it work with Captain America and Black Panther. Why would she suddenly be the exception?

Talking about the poor name recognition of Marvel characters while simultaneously lamenting the loss of James Gunn is hilariously tone deaf. Marvel (with Gunn and without him) have proven their capability of making unknown heroes wildly popular.

The X-Men are unquestionably not all about Wolverine - Storm could easily carry her own series if done properly. Also Rogue, Shadowcat, X-23, Phoenix, Rachel Summers, Jubilee, and many other female x-men are as good as or better characters with as much or more name recognition than half the characters currently in the MCU. They could easily do a female majority X-Men movie with no problem at all, if they wanted to. But I really don't think anyone should be expecting them or the F4 for at least another four or five years, since Marvel has already planned out their upcoming slate. Deadpool is also really not an X-Man. He pronounced himself one once, but he's his own thing. Making him instrumental in the creation of X-Force is actually a huge change from the comics. And it's questionable to what extent Deadpool will even join the MCU. He may be kept separate so that his films can maintain their wildly successful and very MCU unfriendly formula.

And all of this is completely ignoring the fact that we don't even know yet what Marvel is really working on for post-Avengers 4. The Eternals look like an oddball idea, but, so did the Guardians ten years ago. The sequels are obvious and the Black Widow movie will be an interesting experiment in graduating a long-standing character to solo status (which hasn't been done before in the MCU). But everything else is pretty much still up in the air. So, I reiterate: considering Black Panther literally only just showed up and is already considered a key part of Marvel's success, how does it make any sense whatsoever to just automatically assume that none of the new properties Marvel is inevitably going to launch can possibly achieve the same status?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top