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

[Kelthaz]

As I've already explained twice: not deleting the tweets, even through laziness/negligence, implied a continued endorsement of their content. Yes, the tweets are years old, but they were left up until a few days ago. Ergo, from a certain point of view - probably the deciding one, in this case - he continued to make those jokes until a few days ago.

You can't simply make something up and present it as truth. Leaving those tweets up in no way implies a continued endorsement of their content. You have no basis on which to make that claim. One could easily make the counter argument that if he had deleted those tweets he would be criticized for trying to hide from his past.

The far more likely explanation is that the man has 20,000 tweets and never saw a reason to dig through his archive to delete the stupid shit that he said in the past.

 

[JD]

I agree, by the time he got far enough away from this kind of stuff that it might have been a good idea to delete the posts, it was probably so long ago that it wasn't worth going all the way back to delete them.
It was so long ago, and there were so many of them, that trying to delete them all probably would have been a pretty massive undertaking.

 

[Galileo7]

I agree, by the time he got far enough away from this kind of stuff that it might have been a good idea to delete the posts, it was probably so long ago that it wasn't worth going all the way back to delete them.
It was so long ago, and there were so many of them, that trying to delete them all probably would have been a pretty massive undertaking.

He could have opened a new Twitter account. If James Gunn simply deleted the entire Twitter account back then when he stopped posting such things, then this thread would not exist.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

How dare he not destroy the evidence!

 

[Gaith]

You can't simply make something up and present it as truth. Leaving those tweets up in no way implies a continued endorsement of their content.

Did they not appear with next to his own name, on his own active Twitter account, on the main Twitter site, publicly accessible to anyone with a phone, anywhere in the world? Because if they did, I'd say it's on you to prove that after some unspecified amount of time, presumably of your own devising, they should no longer be considered valid. When do tweets that are still part of your active account expire, in terms of implicit endorsement? A year? A month? A week?

The far more likely explanation is that the man has 20,000 tweets and never saw a reason to dig through his archive to delete the stupid shit that he said in the past.

As I've said: likely negligence and laziness on Gunn's part does not invalidate the implicit endorsement of leaving said tweets on his account.

It was so long ago, and there were so many of them, that trying to delete them all probably would have been a pretty massive undertaking.

Again: all he had to do was pay some intern $20/hour, years ago, to sit at a desk, scroll with a mouse, and delete sick, ill-advised jokes the minute he started working for Disney years ago. I wouldn't have considered that a "massive undertaking" had I been hired to do that back in high school.

He could have opened a new Twitter account. If James Gunn simply deleted the entire Twitter account back then when he stopped posting such things, then this thread would not exist.

In fairness, we don't know that for certain, but I suspect you're correct.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Even if Gunn had deleted the tweets, anyone who got them before he did so could have recovered them and showed them anyway, amirite?

Ergo, from a certain point of view - probably the deciding one, in this case - he continued to make those jokes until a few days ago.

Oh, so now he's a time traveler?

 

[JD]

Did they not appear with next to his own name, on his own active Twitter account, on the main Twitter site, publicly accessible to anyone with a phone, anywhere in the world? Because if they did, I'd say it's on you to prove that after some unspecified amount of time, presumably of your own devising, they should no longer be considered valid. When do tweets that are still part of your active account expire, in terms of implicit endorsement? A year? A month? A week?

As I've said: likely negligence and laziness on Gunn's part does not invalidate the implicit endorsement of leaving said tweets on his account.

Again: all he had to do was pay some intern $20/hour, years ago, to sit at a desk, scroll with a mouse, and delete sick, ill-advised jokes the minute he started working for Disney years ago. I wouldn't have considered that a "massive undertaking" had I been hired to do that back in high school.

In fairness, we don't know that for certain, but I suspect you're correct.

Maybe he just thought it wasn't worth the trouble of going back and deleting them all since he's moved on, and he probably thought everyone else had too.

 

[Professor Zoom]

You and I must have different dictionaries.

I have an OED. You using Webster’s?

 

[fireproof78]

I have an OED. You using Webster’s?

I use both.

 

[Timby]

The way I see this is pretty simple:

1) Mike Cernovich is a raging misogynist shithead and deserves no attention whatsoever.

2) Gunn made those tweets when he was 40 fucking years old; at some point you need to grow up from being an edgelord shithead and he probably deserved to be fired given the way Disney's been "cracking down" (lol) on shitty behavior, between Barr, Lasseter and now Gunn.

3) Disney reactionary, sky blue, water wet.

4) Maybe Gunn will finally, after taking a break, get back to making interesting movies instead of the factory-churned Marvel / Disney bullshit.

 

[Reverend]

Here's a notion: who the fuck can even remember what stupid shit they posted even last year, let alone half a decade ago?

I can recall several instances on this very board where someone has resurrected some old thread and I've found myself reading a post I made three, five or even seven years ago and having absolutely no memory of it (and on at least one occasion, fundamentally disagreeing with the point past me was making.) Are we all expected to periodically review all past correspondences and Winston Smith everything we no longer agree with out of existence?

We all say stupid, thoughtless or even moronic things at times and some of us grow as human beings enough that we move past that frame of mind...and some people insist on being morons in perpetuity.

I'm not saying he should or should not have been fired over this (honestly I can see it both ways), but the time for that was back when it actually happened, not several years *after* he both acknowledged and publicly apologised for it.
So let's not pretend this is anything other than arbitrary punishment because he pissed off the wrong guy in the Hollywood food chain. There are guys who have said and indeed *done* much worse crap than this petty nonsense and who continue to get work.

All this does is reinforce the notion that there are no rules and some people will get away with anything, while others may get jumped on if they don't have the right juice. It's half-arsed at best and outright capricious at worst. That is not how you make vulnerable people feel safe from abusive behaviour. It only adds a whole extra layer of anxiety.

 

[Jayson1]

Why again do people go to Twitter? Is it just a place to go insult people or find ways to bring people down for past mistakes? What in blazes is the appeal? Exactly why should we care about his sense of humor to begin with? It's his life not ours. Unless something is specific to a individual then people should have freedom of speech which even means saying awful things. Remember Freedom Speech is also about protecting speech we don't like. Sure you can say he has free speech but that doesn't mean facing consquences but when is firing people a acceptable consquence when no individual has been harmed as in assaulted or bullied? People need to be responsible for their own actions because they know how it represents how people see you but we aren't suppose to be the thought police for people who are different especially since we are all imperfect and we all have made mistakes and even have things about ourselves that aren't always super great. This crap is part of the reason why we ended up with Trump IMO. This constant war on each other created by FoxNews and spread out to the internet, just waiting for someone to slip up and go in like vultures to rip them to shreds. Doesn't forgiveness mean anything, anymore?

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Right, there is no freedom from consequences, but this does not justify unreasonable consequences.

As South Park so aptly pointed out last season, millennials are turning into Kyle’s Mom.

Who the hell is the same person they were 15 years ago anyway? And even if it were yesterday, making light of serious topics is incomparable to degrading entire races.

 

[The Lensman]

Gunn was stupid for not realizing that his "jokes" could come back and bite him in the ass, especially after he got hired by Disney. I've got a pretty brutal sense of humour, but the constant pedo "jokes" are fucking creepy.

Having said that, these posts were discovered by a person who likewise seems fixated on pedophilia. Sorta like all those cranks who couldn't shut the fuck up about how bad homosexuals were and were later found out to be gay. Probably only a matter of time before we find gigs of kiddie porn on Cernovich's hard drive 'ala Jared.

 

[Tuskin38]

Gunn was stupid for not realizing that his "jokes" could come back and bite him in the ass, especially after he got hired by Disney. I've got a pretty brutal sense of humour, but the constant pedo "jokes" are fucking creepy.

Having said that, these posts were discovered by a person who likewise seems fixated on pedophilia. Sorta like all those cranks who couldn't shut the fuck up about how bad homosexuals were and were later found out to be gay. Probably only a matter of time before we find gigs of kiddie porn on Cernovich's hard drive 'ala Jared.

Apparently that guy made similar jokes himself.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I use both.

I hear what you're saying. But, it's sort of like when someone is a bigot. I'm going to call them a bigot. Maybe that's a hateful word, but, a bigot should be labeled as such. Same thing applies to Ted.

 

[FPAlpha]

Well.. 2 things:

a) As a professional who works for companies one should know that the internet never forgets and if someone digs long enough they will find everything. This is what many people still don't understand.. if they have access to Facebook or Twitter so do companies you might want to work for. HR reps do check social media before hiring people and if half of your postings are about getting shitfaced drunk or outright blowing off work and admitting to it your chances getting an interview or even the job are decreasing.

So people should be aware of this and he should have been too so it's his carelessness that cost him a lucrative job working for a company that is hellbent on presenting a squeaky clean family image (nevermind that Disney is playing absolute hardcore ball with their business behind the curtains, this company only cares about the bottom line but i still do love their movies ).

This is Gunn's mistake.. the jokes were maybe poor and in bad taste or he misjudged how they would come across which leads to the second point.

b) Sarcasm, irony and everything else related is sometimes really hard to do in written form because not being able to work with body language, vocal tone and facial expressions is a major problem. So people may not pick up in irony or that you wanted to provoke a discussion by playing devil's advocate so one should take double care when it comes to posting on the internet under their real name because words can be easily twisted for someone who knows how.

Fact is that in recent years people have become more sensitive about issues which directly relates to companies taking more care about their reputations and associations. If there is even a hint of misconduct your head may be on the chopping block unless you are really irreplacable (and few people actually are).
People are just now wisening up to this and it will go on for quite a while until most old skeletons have bean dealt with and the current breed of people either have some PR professionals handle their social media or take care what they post publicly.

Where Gunn falls into this.. who can really tell. Some people have really dark humor which is not mean spirited (someone better not tape me and my closest friends.. we can be sometimes worse) but as i said it is hard to distinguish dark humor from actual dark character traits in the internet.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I don't think anyone's defending his jokes, but what I fail to understand is why tasteless jokes made a decade ago on the internet is a line too far. Why does this count as an action so vile that redemption is impossible?

Because pedophilia and rape are not humorous subjects by any stretch of the imagination. Both are among the many faces of true evil, leaving devastating scars (of many kinds) on its victims. One does not need a class or seminar on that to know the truth of it all---and how there is no humor to be found in it. For anyone to think pedophilia and rape are "fair game" for "humor" says the person is completely divorced from human decency.

The man started his career working on Troma films with Lloyd Kaufman. A film studio that specializes in vulgar and shock humour. His entire career was about disgusting, vile humour and he kept that up on Twitter. He later left that life behind when he started working with Marvel and has apologized for his past behaviour.

i see some using this as an excuse. It is not. Remember, this is in the Twitter era--that's recent history, so only a few, short years ago, Gunn's apparently prurient interests were such that he found no problem in running off what amounted to a stream of pedophilic consciousness, thinking there was nothing wrong with it. Moreover, no one simply "sees the light" overnight, so the idea that Gunn was a changed man by the time he was working with Marvel reads as a bit too convenient.

He's changed and become a better person

..according to?

I do find it telling that some Gunn defenders (elsewhere) are more concerned that his firing interrupts the Marvel conveyor belt than the actions / implications of his sickening behavior.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

..according to?

Well, from what I've gathered he has not made such posts since he apologized six years ago. It seems to me that is a somewhat objective measure that could be made.

 

[M'rk son of Mogh]

..according to?

Dave Bautista. Who's putting his employment on the line in saying so.

And the fact (fact!) that he hasn't posted anything like this in years. Put aside motive for doing this, it is still literally proof of a change.