That seems like a negotiable position.
Rather than forcing Disney's hand and making them re-hire Gunn, he simply wants to work off the script Gunn submitted. I don't see why Disney wouldn't find a nice way to balance that out.
Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
Rather than forcing Disney's hand and making them re-hire Gunn, he simply wants to work off the script Gunn submitted. I don't see why Disney wouldn't find a nice way to balance that out.
Why?
As has been endlessly pointed out - Disney was aware of these tweets, he had apologized, and the matter was closed before being re-opened by a critic of Gunn's political views, which due to the notoriety surrounding this sensitive issue, led to Disney choosing to fire him, something Mr. Gunn did not protest.
It seems that Disney and Mr. Gunn are satisfied with the level of "punishment" but there seems to be no need to erase every connection he has with the Marvel universe, and allowing him to have a writer credit on GotG 3 should not offend more than a handful of folks who are angry with his political views.
And, I think it’s easier to keep him as the writer from a PR point of view, that’s what this is all about. If he had directed the movie all through the PR blitz he would’ve been asked about the tweets and that would be the story. They aren’t going to send out the writer to do PR.
However, if the script isn’t ready to shoot, it’s going to be rewritten, and I would surprised if it’s Gunn who does the work.
Also he's (presumably) already done the work, it's a question of using an existing paid product rather than employing him further
Of course its a PR matter - and even if the script is rewritten, then he can still be given a writer's credit or "based on an original story by" credit.
It’s also a question of where the script is in development. It’s a draft, but is it the final one? If it’s not, then the work is still incomplete and a new writer might have to be brought on.
Depends what was kept, etc. The Writers Guild has very specific rules regarding attribution.
Then the question I guess becomes how willing Bautista and co would be to consider a second writer to be refining the product rather than rewriting it. That's as much about them and where they draw the line as it is about the script itself I imagine.
The impression I've got from things Gunn has said is that the script is basically in its final draft already. There might be minor tweaking but Disney would be stupid to rewrite it from this point. Especially as it's basically the closing chapter of a trilogy. I doubt any writer could do justice to finishing of the story of this version of the Guardians without having to use at least major portions of the story Gunn wrote. And if they put a new writer in completely blind without having seen what was written I'd be surprised if they could successfully finish off the character arcs that have been developed so far.
Do we actually know that it has been written as the "closing chapter" of the story? Or is that just supposition based on assuming the story will be a trilogy and/or based on contracts? Has Gunn, Feige, or anyone else said previously that this entry would be the closing chapter?
Probably also depends on if they are already designing and building sets based one the script.
I believe his stated intent was that it would the the final movie with the "current" Guardians lineup, but God only knows what that means, considering how much it comes down to paychecks and that he already knew Gamora was biting it in Infinity War.
I hate this, I hate this, I hate this, I hate this. Right.
So there are dickweed hypocrites who don't actually understand the concept of Free Speech? Shocking. We better forget all about it then.
Just as a reminder, my point was not that no speech should be without consequences, but that penalizing speech can itself habe bad consequences. Alex Jones has just been thrown off of most major Social Media plattforms, and while I have no symathy with that asshole, I am deeply worried about what's next, as CNN has thrown Jimmy Dore and other left-wing commentators in the same category as Jones. My point was, and still is, that I think it's dangerous to leave it to, or even demand it from big corporations to decide what speech is allowed and which isn't.
Most countries have some variation on laws against incitement and is defined slightly differently in different locales and legal contexts. That they get circumvented is a valid discussion in it's own right but not sure what it has to do with the matter at hand?
So, do you think that comedy about war and the military has a place in "civilized society"? Hot Shots treats Topper Harley's PTSD as a source for humor. Not to mention the kill count joke in Part Deux. There's real cannibalism, so is it okay to laugh about that episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus? Not to mention all the jokes about homosexuals on that show. What about religious feelings, is it okay to hurt them with humor, or do we ban Life of Brian? And then, shouldn't we also penalize caricatures of Mohammed?
See? That's the simplified and shortcut version of the slippery slope.
Besides, if I wasn't clear enough in my last post, don't presume.
By the way, "has no place in a civilized society" is simply ridiculous. There've been civilized societies on this Earth that had ritual human sacrifice have a central place in them. You're misusing the term "civilized society". What you really mean with that phrase is that you don't like it.
And since you seem to have already made up your mind regardless of what I say, I'm gonna leave it here hoping I've made my arguments clear enough.
So there are dickweed hypocrites who don't actually understand the concept of Free Speech? Shocking. We better forget all about it then.
Just as a reminder, my point was not that no speech should be without consequences, but that penalizing speech can itself habe bad consequences. Alex Jones has just been thrown off of most major Social Media plattforms, and while I have no symathy with that asshole, I am deeply worried about what's next, as CNN has thrown Jimmy Dore and other left-wing commentators in the same category as Jones. My point was, and still is, that I think it's dangerous to leave it to, or even demand it from big corporations to decide what speech is allowed and which isn't.
Most countries have some variation on laws against incitement and is defined slightly differently in different locales and legal contexts. That they get circumvented is a valid discussion in it's own right but not sure what it has to do with the matter at hand?
So, do you think that comedy about war and the military has a place in "civilized society"? Hot Shots treats Topper Harley's PTSD as a source for humor. Not to mention the kill count joke in Part Deux. There's real cannibalism, so is it okay to laugh about that episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus? Not to mention all the jokes about homosexuals on that show. What about religious feelings, is it okay to hurt them with humor, or do we ban Life of Brian? And then, shouldn't we also penalize caricatures of Mohammed?
See? That's the simplified and shortcut version of the slippery slope.
Besides, if I wasn't clear enough in my last post, don't presume.
By the way, "has no place in a civilized society" is simply ridiculous. There've been civilized societies on this Earth that had ritual human sacrifice have a central place in them. You're misusing the term "civilized society". What you really mean with that phrase is that you don't like it.
And since you seem to have already made up your mind regardless of what I say, I'm gonna leave it here hoping I've made my arguments clear enough.
Welcome to last month.
I doubt the script was the final draft and I doubt Gunn would do another after everything that has happened. If another Director comes in and another writer polishes the script it will likely be a very different film we end up with.
Why shouldn't they get to decide what's on their platform and what isn't? Aren't they using their Freedom of Speech as well in that determination? Why should they be forced to allow ALL speech? So far, most of them have been far broader... Zuckerberg still allows Holocaust deniers... In theory, most of these platforms don't allow certain kinds of conduct, should those be removed? In a push for more Freedom of Speech, should all regulation of that by a company be put aside?
Besides, the First Amendment protects us from the government, not from corporations. That would take a different law. And again, why shouldn't a privately held entity decide what is and isn't permissible?
This site will ban you for certain words, is that wrong? Should the TrekBBS allow all kinds of language and behavior?
- Status