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

[TREK_GOD_1]

Because they might not want to do the movie and a contract is no sure bet. If you got a good agent or you have enough leverage it's possible to get out of those things

I imagine they singed for three "solo" films--much like RDJ, Evans, et al. Further, contracts are not easy to "get out of", and its is doubtful any of the GOTG actors would dare hint that they might fight the terms of their contract(s) as it would likely not go anywhere good for the actors.

Also if they are relucant to do the movie that is something any future director will know about and might not want to get involved if he or she thinks the cast is going to be hard to work with.

One, Disney call the shots and pulls the strings, not the actors. They signed their name, and now they have to dance, despite their disgusting support of Gunn. Do you really think any of the GOTG actors is going to risk their careers being a problem / refusing to do their job all because of their reprehensible whining over Gunn not being brought back to this series?

Oh, I see the screengrab of Bautista's statement. "Legally obligated" is all you need to know. In other words...contract. He will jump whenever Disney demands it.

 

[Spot261]

Curiosity, for those with some knowledge of media legalities. In the event of a contract like Bautista's which makes him legally obligated to fulfill a certain number of films what are the likely consequences for non completion?

 

[Jayson1]

Even if they come back does anyone expect any of them to do a good job? People giving the minimal effort to simply fulfill a contract obligation doesn't sound like something that is going to lend itself to a good movie?

Jason

 

[Noname Given]

Curiosity, for those with some knowledge of media legalities. In the event of a contract like Bautista's which makes him legally obligated to fulfill a certain number of films what are the likely consequences for non completion?

- Sometimes a hefty financial penalty

- It will also make other studios and even small productions hesitant to hire him as recasting costs time and money; and he'll be know as the guy who quits after signing if there's any legal change he disagrees with. A director change on any project isn't that uncommon. (And no, most won't think - "Well GotG was a special situation"; they'll think "This guy backs out of contractual obligations.)

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Even if they come back does anyone expect any of them to do a good job? People giving the minimal effort to simply fulfill a contract obligation doesn't sound like something that is going to lend itself to a good movie?

Jason

Which is why professionals who care about their reputation, their future bankability and the fans who literally make their careers try not to do that, even if they have personal reservations. Especially in a major, highly anticipated sequel. Plenty of movies have been made with people who didn't want to be there and still turned out great. And when they don't turn out great, it's usually the actors who get the blame for phoning it in, no one else. No one on the Guardians cast (with maybe the exception of Chris Pratt) is actually big enough to just phone it in for GotG3 and not have that effect their careers.

 

[BillJ]

I bet Gunn might not have even been fired if the Fox merger wasn't still in the works. I'm sure they would be willing to toss the entire MCU away to make sure that happens. Disney isn't going to let Gunn get in their way of eventually owning everything in show business.

This doesn't make any sense. The employment of someone who made bad tweets six years ago isn't going to sink a merger.

 

[USS Firefly]

This doesn't make any sense. The employment of someone who made bad tweets six years ago isn't going to sink a merger.

Didn't he make those tweets more like 10 to 15 years ago?
He apologized for the tweets 6 years ago

 

[Kai "the spy"]

One, Disney call the shots and pulls the strings, not the actors. They signed their name, and now they have to dance, despite their disgusting support of Gunn.

You know, I've kept my own views aside before in this thread, because I really didn't feel like getting into another lengthy debate about principles and society (I've had too much of that in the past few years), so I posted only quotes of people of note.

But you just crossed a line with me.

You didn't call the jokes disgusting, you didn't call Gunn's attempts at humor disgusting, you just called the comments of the cast disgusting.

Mind you, they didn't defend the jokes. On the contrary, they made very clear in their public comments that they also found the jokes horrible. They just said that Gunn has changed as a person since then, and that these jokes are not representative of the man today.
Bautista, independently from the others, publicly disagreed with the descision to fire Gunn (no pun intended), again, because he feels the jokes were not representative of the man today, and that the "outrage" was orchastrated by extreme right-wingers to get rid of a public voice against Trump.
And, as has been noted, they didn't even call for Disney to re-hire Gunn.

And you find that disgusting? Seriously? How judgemental can you get. You don't have to agree with them, but calling relatively mild support like that disgusting, that is either ripping the word of all its meaning, or simply toxic to any open public debate.

Oh, I see the screengrab of Bautista's statement. "Legally obligated" is all you need to know. In other words...contract. He will jump whenever Disney demands it.

Yeah, but he also wrote "Its [sic] also pretty nauseating to work for someone who'd empower a smear campaign by fascist #cybernazis", so he clearly isn't too worried about his career to mince his words.


I was planning on giving a statement about my own views on the whole matter, simply to get on record and not to debate anybody (again, don't really want to get myself dragged into one again), but I'm a bit short on time right now, so I'll have to do that later.

 

[theenglish]

Here is a link to an article that has the full text of the cast letter.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...he-galaxy-cast-open-letter-support-james-gunn

Disney must have know about these tweets years ago because they knew about other things he had posted and removed around the time he was hired. They must have also watched his previous films. This is about a matter becoming public and supposedly tarnishing their image. I think it is entirely possible that Disney will have him apologize and reinstate him.

I agree with the sentiment in the letter from the cast--that there comes a time when people need to stop hunting for their pound of flesh, accept atonement, and move on.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Oh, that's good. I like this. I would like to use again, by your leave, Professor.

Sure. Of course.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I bet Gunn might not have even been fired if the Fox merger wasn't still in the works. I'm sure they would be willing to toss the entire MCU away to make sure that happens. Disney isn't going to let Gunn get in their way of eventually owning everything in show business.

Jason

You think Gunn’s tweets were off brand for FOX? You are getting desperate.

And the MCU is probably the most profitable part of the Disney portfolio. Well, movie wise.

Gunn was off brand for Disney.

 

[Mage]

I wonder if this situation could become a second 'Solo' for Disney, where fans got so annoyed with Disney/Star Wars, some of them boycotted the movie?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I wonder if this situation could become a second 'Solo' for Disney, where fans got so annoyed with Disney/Star Wars, some of them boycotted the movie?

Call me when it's discovered that Solo under-performed for the reason that fans staged a boycott.

 

[Timby]

Here is a link to an article that has the full text of the cast letter.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...he-galaxy-cast-open-letter-support-james-gunn

Disney must have know about these tweets years ago because they knew about other things he had posted and removed around the time he was hired. They must have also watched his previous films. This is about a matter becoming public and supposedly tarnishing their image. I think it is entirely possible that Disney will have him apologize and reinstate him.

I agree with the sentiment in the letter from the cast--that there comes a time when people need to stop hunting for their pound of flesh, accept atonement, and move on.

I don't think there's any chance that Disney re-hires Gunn; PR-wise, it would be an awful look. And like I mentioned much earlier in the thread, everyone's an idiot when they're 20 years old, but Gunn was fucking 40 when he was making these jokes. At some point you need to grow out of being an edgelord dumbass.

Let's also not pretend that Disney doesn't have a history of being fine with alienating directors. Obviously there was the Lord / Miller fiasco with Solo, Joss Whedon walked away from all future involvement with Marvel Studios after clashing so much with the company over the editing of Age of Ultron, they had no problem telling Josh Trank and Colin Trevorrow to fuck off from Star Wars stuff, and obviously now there's the stuff with Gunn.

 

[Mage]

Call me when it's discovered that Solo under-performed for the reason that fans staged a boycott.

It's a thought that some people have. I know several fans personally who didn't go, but they were like myself, just didn't feel like it. I know I've read plenty of comments from fans who said they wouldn't go to boycot. Not sure how big those numbers really are ofcourse.

 

[Timby]

I know I've read plenty of comments from fans who said they wouldn't go to boycot. Not sure how big those numbers really are ofcourse.

They're a great vocal minority. Solo flopped because it had one of the worst marketing campaigns in recent history and it was a movie that no one asked for. It'd be like Disney releasing Indiana Jones 5, except having it be an origin story and, I don't know, feature Jai Courtney playing young Indy. It would fall flat on its goddamn face.

 

[Noname Given]

Here is a link to an article that has the full text of the cast letter.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/20...he-galaxy-cast-open-letter-support-james-gunn

Disney must have know about these tweets years ago because they knew about other things he had posted and removed around the time he was hired. They must have also watched his previous films. This is about a matter becoming public and supposedly tarnishing their image. I think it is entirely possible that Disney will have him apologize and reinstate him.

I agree with the sentiment in the letter from the cast--that there comes a time when people need to stop hunting for their pound of flesh, accept atonement, and move on.

Gunn was fired at this time for the tweets because of the fact they fired Rosanne (and cancelled her show before they decided to rework a spinoff, and made sure she signed all rights to them so she would be compensated in any form); and to not be seen as 'politically motivated' or hypocrites by a large section of the public (namely the racist and idiot Trumps supporters who strive to claim social equivalency between their and the Left's actions) - they fired Gunn to show any such behavior (regardless of when it occurred) won't be tolerated.

(And yes, I've said before, it's a BIG difference between Gunn - who made the tweets about a decade ago, but did completely own up to them and apologize for them; and Rosanne, who made her openly racist tweets a few months ago, and at first tried to half-heartedly apologize; but soon started blaming those who called out the tweets as racist, saying they just didn't get humor; that it was all a big non-racist joke, which everyone who 'gets' humor knows; while she at the same time also claimed it was done in a "Ambien fueled haze" - and she got even more indigent and "disgusted" when members of the Hollywood community expressed support for the person Gunn appears to be today; while still calling her 'racist' for a 'joke she just made in good fun...' <--- Yeah, again, it's false equivalency similar to when Trump says "There are good and bad people on BOTH sides when referering to a confrontation between an openly racist neo-nazi group and people who oppose those views. There's no such thing as a 'good' - in terms of good and evil Neo Nazi - such just doesn't exist.)

 

[Professor Zoom]

They're a great vocal minority. Solo flopped because it had one of the worst marketing campaigns in recent history and it was a movie that no one asked for. It'd be like Disney releasing Indiana Jones 5, except having it be an origin story and, I don't know, feature Jai Courtney playing young Indy. It would fall flat on its goddamn face.

And not being particularly good to boot. As soon as I stepped out of the theater, I practically forgot all about it. Not only is it something that no one asked for, it's pretty much unnecessary. It doesn't really contribute to the larger story. Seriously, did we really need to know how he got his gun?

If it wasn't Star Wars, no one would've considered it a flop. It underperformed for a Star Wars movie. Had to happen sometime.

 

[Starscream2112]

I keep expecting an anoucment that Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 has been canceled. I just have this feeling.

 

[JD]

I would think they would probably lose way to much money to cancel it at this point. It would be better to finish up and release the movie and make at least some money off it, than to just toss it all.