Disney fires James Gunn from "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3"
- Thread starter Lawrence B
- Start date
- Status
They also licensed "New York Groove" by Ace Frehley, but the scene was cut. The scene is on the home release, complete with music.
Exactly. But a movie's tone determines how the creators feel about the characters and their actions. Tone is also what we're talking about with Gunn's tweets, right? So there's a connection here (albeit a loose one). If Gunn feels Yondu is now a good guy, he's going to direct scenes accordingly and we're going to be asked to embrace him with open arms. I liked Yondu as a character and that he had a soft spot for Quill. But that only goes so far. I was not gonna fist-pump him or laugh black-humor style while he was massacring the mutinous crew and when he delivered the "I kill...for love!!!" line I was completely pulled out of the picture. It's a tonal problem. If he wanted Yondu to really be seen as good they should have shown an increase in mercy, of using the arrow less. Instead the message it sends is like the line in True Lies, only it was done earnestly instead of tongue-in-cheek.
Gunn talked a lot about how he's all about love lately but I think he still has a few things to learn about it. Love is about mercy, not controlled killing.
A better example of handling moral choice was in the newest MI where Ethan Hunt goes out of his way to limit bloodshed. And hell, even in Kill Bill before Beatrix wipes out the Crazy 88s she tries to talk down the chick with the mace.
I don't recall Yondu saying anything close to that in the movie. He says, "I don't use my head to fly the arrow, boy! I use my heart!" Love never had anything to do with it.
Also, I think it's too simplistic to see Guardians Vol. 2 as suddenly "making Yondu a good guy." It just gave us more of his story, allowing us to learn why he made the choices that he did, both right and wrong.
When he broke the Ravager code against trafficking children, he was shunned by the rest of the Ravagers. One of the consequences of this was that the only people available for his crew were people that none of the other 99 clans would take. Either because they were also criminals incapable of being trusted to follow orders, or because they were just plain stupid and incompetent.
It's a wonder he kept order as long as he did. In the mutiny, the criminal half of his crew murdered the stupid half.
That's the context in which I understood Yondu's slaughter of the remaining crew. All that remained were murderers and mutineers, and Yondu saw himself as executing justice (or what passes for justice among pirates).
He was also cutting ties with his former life, allowing it to go up in flames.
That doesn't erase the evil things he did, but that wasn't what the story was about. It was about him and Quill coming to a measure of reconciliation.
Really, every member of the Guardians of the Galaxy (except possibly Groot) comes from a traumatic past. Sometimes it's possible for there to be reconciliation with the wrongdoer (as there was with Yondu). Often, it's not (as with Ego).
At least, that's my take on it.
You're splitting hairs (pun intended). Had everything to do with it. Not as eye-rolling as Spock yelling Khan in Into Darkness but I still had to roll my eyes over it. There is no "using your heart" to kill people. In fact, scientifically speaking, soldiers have to effectively short-circuit their empathy to kill. The line doesn't make sense and is only there to clumsily attempt to pull at heart-strings. You gotta remember that Gunn comes from a decidedly B-movie or schlock background. He's got a lot of work to do to escape "tropey" style writing. That's why the comedy works because he can sort of wink and nudge at the audience most of the time. I liked the sappy Secret of NIMH ending of the first Guardians but he sort of over-reached with Guardians 2.
Didn't want to go in circles on this...It's just that I pulled this critique out to counter the idea that Gunn is the only one who can write these characters. Gunn is great when he's doing Big Bang Theory ensemble humor full of pop-culture references but I can see others doing better at delivering serious drama.
In fact, my feeling about Guardians 2 is that it either ended things right at the edge or beyond the edge of entering the zone of diminishing returns. Guardians 1 arc'ed the characters so much that it left too little runway for Guardians 2. So you have someone like Drax who is relegated to penis joke duty. I just don't see how any subsequent sequels can have the same impact as the first film because the redemption and team-building theme is already played out. So maybe it's a good idea to come up with a new angle on the material rather than just having them sit around exchanging sitcom punch-lines. It's fun, don't get me wrong, but not really moving.
The first two were good movies. It would be fair if Disney took a hit for firing Gunn - after all, they hired him in the first place and made a lot of loot in the process, and I doubt they were completely unaware of this guy's past. They just rolled the dice on him. Well, sometimes in gambling you lose what you won.
I'm more interested now in the story of the actors taking a public stand in Gunn's favor, against the studio.
I'm more interested now in the story of the actors taking a public stand in Gunn's favor, against the studio.
Whether someone is making the "jokes" to someone they know (as the intended target) or not, what possible benefit would one (specifically in the Gunn case) get from "joking" about some of the most sickening ideology and/or acts a person can commit? Gunn and his defenders have yet to provide a rational answer to that because it does not exist. Gunn appeared to operate from a part of society that has been selective about which acts/behavior are revolting, while others--not so much. One would think that in a world of infinite subjects and ideas one can easily find humor in, that rape and pedophilia would not shoot to the top of Gunn--and his defenders' list.
Agreed. Any one still selling the "satire" angle--or anything else is trying too hard to protect the man. Then, we still see some so concerned about the future of a freaking Marvel movie than the how and why of Gunn and like-minded followers/supporters.
I didn't mean that nobody else could write the characters, obviously other people can since they've been appearing in other media written by other people for decades, I just meant that it would be so different that I'd they just do something else.
To care about people they don't know having consensual sex in an alley? Those people should be putting their energy elsewhere.
Not all toxic shit is created equal.
I can think of worse reasons to make jokes: Normalizing racism. Intentionally hurting people. Ventriloquism.
Can't help but wonder, interesting as all this is, if you are getting to a point?
I think it would help if you re read the flow of that exchange, perhaps this time getting it right.
Once you're talking toxic shit, I don't know if degrees of badness really matter.
One could argue making rape and pedophilia jokes might normalize those acts.
Then try again, you messed up. There was an analogy in play which only you missed.
I don't see the cast taking a stand against the studio:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bl3OVfe...mbed&utm_campaign=embed_loading_state_control
They voiced their support for Mr. Gunn (Though not the jokes hand other things posted by him on Twitter and other social media in the past); but nothing in that statement shows they begrudge Disney/Marvel for the action taken against him. In fact while they are acknowledging their support for him, the cast statement doesn't ask that Disney/Marvel re-hire him.
Chris Pratt did make a comment on istagram that he'd "...personally love to see him reinstated as director of Volume 3." - but nowhere in the cast statement does it seem the cast is taking a stand against the studio.
- Status